C482/1075/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 1986 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.          or proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                 C482 No.1075 of 2023
                                 With
                                 IA/1/2023(Compounding Application)
                                 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. B.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicants.

Mr. A.K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

This case itself is having peculiar circumstances. The FIR was registered by complainant/ respondent no.2, as against the present applicants and other named accused persons, which included - Monu Tripathi, Narendra Singh, Naresh Singh and Mukul Tripathi, who were shown to be involved in commission of offences under Sections 307, 452, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

According to the allegations levelled in the FIR, the principal role which was assigned of firing has been given to Monu Tripathi, who is said to have fired upon the victim. Though, the bullet has not hit the victim, but rather it has brushed his right knee, due to which an injury in the nature of abrasion was caused.

But, however, when the investigation was being carried out, the Investigating Officer has submitted Chargesheet No.38 of 2018 on 10.02.2018.

When the Investigating Officer, ultimately, on culmination of the investigation, has found that Mridul Tripathi and Naresh Pal Singh were not found to be involved in the commission of offences, but rather the present applicants were said to be involved in the commission of offences under Sections 307, 452, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

The aforesaid offences, on which the cognizance has been taken resulting into registration of Sessions Trial No.237 of 2019, "State Vs. Mukul Tripathi and Another" where the applicants have been sought to be tried for the commission of offences under Sections 307, 452, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

Out of the aforesaid offences, the offences under Section 307 and 452 are not compoundable, but the parties to the C482 Application have filed compounding application under their joint signatures, which have been verified by their respective counsels, who have submitted that owing to the fact that, they are the residents of the same vicinity and they are common friends. Owning to the interference made by the elderly persons of the society, they have entered into a compromise and they want compound the offences in terms of the conditions mentioned in their compounding application.

Apparently, the offences under Section 307 of the IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., but then the impact of its composition has to be considered, in the light of the facts and circumstances of each and every case and, particularly, in the instant case where, according to the Doctor's report, there were four injuries, which were found on the person of the complainant/ respondent and, the Doctor has opined that all the injuries are simple in nature, except for injury no.4, which he has observed that it might have been caused because of the fire arm injuries and rest of the injuries were found to have been caused by sharp instrument and nails.

The said injuries' report, as submitted by the Doctor and the statement recorded by him too, there is a doubt created with regards to the assignment of any specific role to the present applicants for the commission of offence under Section 307 of the IPC, as per the allegations in the FIR.

So far as the aspect pertaining to the composition of offence has been widely considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, as reported in (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54, particularly, as prescribed in paragraph no.29.6, which has had to be read depending upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case for the purpose of dealing with the composition of offence under Section 307 of the IPC.

Since in the instant case, it is only a minor abrasion which has caused and, in fact, no vital injury was caused by the gunshot on a vital part of the body of the complainant, the same could be considered for composition, in the light of the grounds taken in paragraph no.29.6 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder:

"29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

Owing to the aforesaid reasons, the compounding application would stand allowed, in terms of its conditions contained therein and, as a consequence to it, the ST No.237 of 2019, "State Vs. Mukul Tripathi & Another" pending consideration before the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District - Udham Singh Nagar, would hereby stand quashed qua the present applicants.

But, however, since compounding has been made in relation of the two of the offences, under Section 307 and 452 of the IPC, along with the compoundable offences under Section 504 and 506 of the IPC, the same would stand compounded, subject to the conditions that applicant no.1 and 2 would plant 5 trees each in terms of the conditions given hereunder:-

"1. That the applicants would be planting 5 trees each in an area to be identified by the Horticulture Department of their District to which they belong, at their own cost.

2. The plantation of the trees would be made in the respective areas, from which they belong, under the supervision of the Horticulture Department.

3. It is only upon the submission of the certificate of the planting of the five trees to be issued by the competent authority of the Horticulture Department, which has to be submitted before the competent Court ceased with the criminal proceedings, its then only the proceedings would be dropped, in compliance of the today's order passed in the present C482 application.

4. If the aforesaid compliance is not made within a period of one month from today, it will automatically result into the revival of the aforesaid criminal proceedings.

5. If at any stage, any Officer of the Horticulture Department is found to have issued a fraudulent certificate, he would be criminally dealt with in accordance with law."

Subject to the aforesaid, the matter is compounded and the C482 Applications would stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 01.08.2023 Sukhbant