Madras High Court
Veilan vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 November, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 17/11/2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.RC(MD)No.392 of 2022
1.Veilan
2.Arumugam
3.Selvam
4.Santhosh
5.Murugesan
6.Ammasi : Petitioners/Appellants/
A1 to A6
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Natchiyapuram Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(In Crime No.86 of 2015) : Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
Prayer:- This Revision has been filed under
section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to
call for the records of the Principal District Judge,
Sivagangai, in Crl.A No.34 of 2019, dated 01/04/2022,
confirming the conviction on the petitioner by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,
Sivagangai, in SC No.79 of 2017, dated 12/04/2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ramu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
O R D E R
This revision has been filed against the judgment
passed by the the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai,
in Crl.A No.34 of 2019, dated 01/04/2022, confirming the
judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the
revision petitioners by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-
cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, in SC No.79 of
2017, dated 12/04/2019.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
On 01/08/2021 at about 8.15 pm, when the de-facto
complainant was in his house, all the accused persons due
to previous enmity with an intention to cause assault
assembled in front of his house with deadly weapons,
abused him in filthy language; and A1 tried to murder him
with aruval. When the assault was resisted, injury
occurred on his right forehand. Similarly, A2 also tried
to murder him with aruval and due to it, injury occurred
on the right rib region. A3 to A6 joined along with A1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and A2 and attacked with wooden log, thereby caused
grievous and simple injuries to the de-facto complainant.
3.On the basis of the above said occurrence, a
case was registered in Crime No.86 of 2015 for the
offences under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324,
506(ii) and 307 IPC. After completing the formalities of
investigation, final report was filed before the
committal court. After committal process is over, it was
taken on file in SC No.79 of 2017 by the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, for trial.
4.Before the trial court, 13 witnesses were
examined and 13 documents marked, apart from 2 material
objects were also exhibited. On the side of the accused,
1 witness was examined and 3 documents were marked.
5.At the conclusion of the trial process, the
trial court found all the accused guilty as detailed
below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rank of the Section Sentenced Fine Amount
Accused
A1 and A2 148 IPC To undergo 1 To pay a fine amount of
year R/I Rs.250/- with default
clause.
A1 and A2 307 IPC To undergo 7 To pay a fine amount of
years R/I Rs.1,000/- with default
clause.
A3 to A6 148 IPC To undergo 1 To pay a fine of Rs.
years R/I 250/- with default
clause.
A3 to A6 307 r/w 149 To undergo 7 To pay a fine of Rs.
IPC years R/I 1,000/- with default
clause.
6.Challenging the above said conviction and
sentence, all the accused persons filed appeal before the
Principal District Judge, Sivagangai, in Crl.A No.34 of
2019. That was also dismissed, confirming the conviction
and sentence imposed by the trial court. Against which,
this revision has been preferred by the accused persons.
7.Pending appeal, it was informed to this court
that compromise was reached between the parties and they
have also settled the entire issue out of the court and
the compensation amount was also paid to the injured, who
is the de-facto complainant herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.Since the offences under sections 307, 148,
294(b), 147 and 506(ii) IPC are not compoundable in
nature, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioners by citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ramgopal and another Vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012, dated
29/09/2021) has made his submission.
9.The petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C
seeking permission of this court to compound the offence.
In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
went to the issue of compounding the offences, which are
not compoundable in nature and has finally concluded that
by exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, even
non-compundable offences can be permitted to be
compounded. But while exercising the above said
jurisdiction, care must be undertaken to the following
issues:-
“(i)Nature and effect of the
offence on the conscious of the society;
(ii)Seriousness of the injury, if
any;
(iii)Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iv)Conduct of the accused persons,
prior to and after the occurrence of the
purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.”
10.So in the light of the above said direction,
now let us bear in mind the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
11.It appears that there was previous enmity
between the parties over a petty issue namely missing of
one chick. It is a case and counter, the present case in
SC No.79 of 2017 and CC No.23 of 2018. Both the cases
have been tried simultaneously by the Assistant Sessions
Judge and an issue has been framed to the effect that
whether, the present case viz., SC No.79 of 2017 and CC
No.23 of 2018 occurred in the very same time and place.
But concluded that both the occurrences did not take
place in the very same time and place and the complaint
given by A1 was a prior occurrence. Out of the above said
prior occurrence only, the present occurrence said to
have been taken place. The result of the counter case is
not known.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12.But however, it is seen that the de-facto
complainant is also present before the court and enquiry
was made by me. He has stated that the because of the
above said compromise, he is not willing to proceed the
matter further and he has no objection to acquit the
accused persons. The nature of the injuries have also
been noted. No doubt, there was a grievous injury,
measuring 10 x 3 x 2 cm laceration on the right forehand;
10x 3 x 3 cm laceration on the right rib region. But
however, considering the fact that both are the residents
of the same village and neighbours also and considering
the reason for the above said occurrence, I am of the
considered view that permission may be granted to the
petitioners to compound the offences.
13.In view of the above said discussion, the
criminal revision is allowed and the impugned judgment of
conviction passed by the trial court, which was confirmed
by the first appellate court are set aside and the
revision petitioners/A1 to A6 are acquitted from the
charges levelled against them. The fine amount if any
paid need not be refunded to the revision petitioners.
Further, the joint compromise memo filed by the parties
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
shall form part and parcel of the this order.
Accordingly, this criminal revision stands allowed as
indicated above.
17/11/2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate/
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Sivagangai.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Sivagangai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN,J
er
Crl.RC(MD)No.392 of 2022
17/11/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
