Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Swarup @ Sarup Mondal @ Babu @ ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 971 of 2019
Swarup @ Sarup Mondal @ Babu @ Swarup Biswas
vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the petitioner : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly,
Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas,
Mr. Amit Singh,
Mr. Jyoti Agarwal.
For the State : Mr. S. G. Mukerji, Ld. P.P
Mr. Imran Ali,
Ms. Debjani Sahu.
For the defacto complainant/victim : Mr. Soumyajit Bhatta.
Hearing concluded on : 21.08.2023
Judgment on : 15.09.2023
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1.
The present revision has been preferred against judgment of
conviction and an order of sentence dated 25.09.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in
connection with Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2018 arising out of the
judgment and order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 5th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia which corresponds to
Kotwali Police Station Case No.623 of 2013 dated 29.04.2013 (G.R.
Case No.1943 of 2018) under Sections 341/325 of the Indian Penal
Code, convicting thereby the appellant for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 341/323 of Indian Penal Code and
sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer
simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days more for commission of
offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of
Indian Penal Code, in default of payment to imprisonment for five
days. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Charge was framed for offence punishable under Sections 341/325 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for offences
punishable under Sections 341/323 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The opposite party no.2/complainant and the victim, (now a
major) have filed their respective affidavits stating that the
dispute in the present case has been amicably settled.
5. The parties are neighbours.
6. It is stated on affidavit that there was a misunderstanding between
the parties and the proceeding was initiated.
7. It has also been stated that the defacto complainant and the victim do
not have any objection if the petitioner is acquitted of all charges.
8. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khursheed &
Another vs. State of U.P & Anr., (2007) 12 SCC 68, delivered on
28th September, 2017.
"14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, and considering the deed of compromise and
having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our
opinion, ends of justice would be met if we grant
necessary permission for compounding an offence
punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34
IPC as required by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of
the Code. The offence punishable under Section 323
IPC has already been compounded by the parties.
15. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the
composition of offence under the section shall have an
effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the
offence has been compounded. The resultant effect of
compounding of offences would be that the accused
should be acquitted. In other words, once the offences
have been compounded and the requisite permission
is granted by the court, the accused must be
acquitted.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to
be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Compounding
of offence is permitted and the appellants are ordered
to be acquitted."
9. Considering the materials on record, the affidavits filed by the defacto
complainant and the victim, and the judgment relied upon, the
compounding of the offences stands allowed as the offences for which
the petitioner has been charged and convicted are all
COMPOUNDABLE as per Section 320(1) Cr.P.C.
10. Section 341 and 323 of IPC are compoundable under Section 320(1)
of Cr.P.C. The said offences are compoundable at the instance of the
person who has been wrongfully restrained and to whom hurt is
caused. In the present case, the victim, now a major has stated his
willingness to compound both the offences on affidavit.
11. The revision accordingly stands allowed on being compounded under
Section 320(1) Cr.P.C. and the petitioner/accused stands acquitted as
per Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C.
12. The revisional application being CRR 971 of 2019 is accordingly
disposed of.
13. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
15. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
16. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
