Holding

An offence under Section 324 IPC is compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused, with the permission of the court under Section 320(2) CrPC, and therefore the conviction is set aside.

Summary

Manoj and Bijendra Singh, along with Ram Avatar, were convicted for voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons under Section 324 IPC (originally under Section 307 IPC). The High Court altered the conviction to Section 324 IPC. The appellants sought to compound the offence with the complainant, Bahadur Singh, through the intervention of the village panchayat. The Supreme Court examined Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits compounding of offences like Section 324 IPC with the court's permission, and noted that the 2005 amendment removing this provision had not yet come into force. Finding that the complainant voluntarily desired compounding for genuine reasons, the Court allowed the compounding, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the release of the appellants.

Issues considered

Whether an offence under Section 324 IPC is compoundable under Section 320(2) of the CrPC.
Whether the court may permit compounding of such an offence upon the complainant's consent.
Effect of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 on the compoundability of Section 324 IPC.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1B)(a), s. 3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320(1), s. 320(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 324

Subjects

compounding of offencesSection 324 IPCSection 320 CrPCcriminal procedurevillage panchayatcourt permissionconviction set aside

Judgment

(2008] 13 S.C.R. 989

MANOJ & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
8
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH
PANTA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 320 .(2) - Con-
viction u/s 324 and 324134 /PC - Compounding of the offence c
- Permissibility - Held: Offence u/s 324 /PC can be com-
pounded by the person to whom the hurt is caused, with the
permission of the Court - In the facts of the case, the Court is
satisfied tf]at the complainant has voluntarily desired to com-
pound the offence - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 324.
D
•-i Trial court convicted appellant No. 1 u/s. 307 IPC and
u/s 25 (1 B) (a) and s. 3 of Arms Act. Appellant No. 2 and
another accused were con.victed u/s 307 r/w s. 34 IPC.
High Court converted the conviction u/s. 307 and 307 r/w
s. 34 ll~C to one under s. 324 and 324 r/w 34 respectively. E
Appellant No. 1 was acquitted of the provisions under
Arms Act. Appeal was preferred to this Court by the ap-
pellants. Appellants filed petition seeking compounding
of the offences. They stated that they and the complain-
. ant have compounded the offence with the intervention F
of the village Panchayat. The complairJant in his affidavit
also stated to the same effect.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous
G
weapons or means by the accused constitutes an offence
under Section 324 IPC which can be compounded by per-
son to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the
Court in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C.
989 H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A Code of Criminal Proc~dure (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Act
No.25/2005] amending Section 320 Cr.P.C. whereby in the
Table under sub-section (2) (a) omitting the words "vol-
untarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means"
in column 1 and the entries relating thereto in columns 2
B and 3, has not yet been brought into force. Therefore, the
offence under 324 is still compoundable with the permis·
sion of the Court. [Paras 12 and 13] [995,A·C]
. 2. The appellants and the complainant are residents
of the same village and with the intervention of the village
C panchayat, the complainant has compounded the offence
with the appellants and now he has no grievance against
them. The appellants and the complainant have categori-
cally stated in their affidavits filed before this Court that
after the incident they have developed family relations and
D they wish to reside peacefully in the village in future with·
out any kind of disruption in their future lives. The court
is satisfied that the complainant has voluntarily desired
to compound the offence with the appellants for sufficient
and genuine reasons stated in their respective affidavits
E and such compounding is legal and valid. The parties are
allowed to compound the offence u/s. 324 IPC. [Paras 14
and 15] [995,D·F] ·
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1530 of 2008
F
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2007 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Crl.
Appeal No. 631 of 2000 .
Jai Prakash Pandey and F.I. Choudhury for the Appellants.
G
R.P. Gupta, G.D. Singh, Sunny Chowdhary, Vairagya
Vardhan Dubey, Aditya Singh, Pramod Kumar Yadav, Viresh
Kumar Yadav and Goodwill lndeevar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
?. J ('. ··. MANOJ & ANR. v.'STATE OF MADHYA 991'
PRADESH

· , LOKESHWAR SINGH .PANTA, J. 1. Leave granted. A
-,.r· - . t· ··1-· • !.; -. (" ,.._ . . I
._ .. 2. Manof and Bijendra Singh - two broth.ers have filed this,
a'ppeal
"
against
• '
the.judgment
'./ • . •' ..' . '
and order dated 11.12 ..2007
'' " ·• ~- ~> r · •

passed in Criminal Appeal No. 631/2000 by.the High Court of
Madhya Prract'!3sh8ench at. Gwalior,,whereby and. whereunder,.
the c~nvic~ion,?f Manoj-apP.~llant,No .. 1, h~[ein repord~d by 8
Special Juqge (t'JD~S) ~nd,Additi<?,~al ?ession;s J.udge.:Gwalior
in Sessions Trial No ..161/99 under Section 307 readwith Sec-
tion 34 'of the indian,Pena{ Code [for sti.ort 'IPC'J has been. al- .
• ; '· - ~ I · , j ..., ; _-, ,.., . , .) • 1' t • • , .... • · - ·I

tered ,to Section 324, IP.C and sentenced to undergo,rigorous ..
imprisonment
'1 t)
' • .
for ..3'years,
<. . '' •.- '
l
~iiereas,- convicti~n of Bijendra Singh; 'c
.~ t ..,, • ,... • .. -· . .. , - __,,

app~ll~~(t-:J.q.. 2 he~ein,(as ~!_so a~cusecfNo.~"Raf'n Avtar) from.:L
Section
'~
307 read
'· ' .. ., ' . .
with
.
Section
·.,]·.~ '.
34. IPC.
has.been
. ; ~
converted
. -
to,- - - "-'' :

Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant No. 2 is sen-
tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, whereas
Ram Avatar ~as•. ~een ordered _,o, undergo rigorou~ imp~iso~-: :•D
ment for one year. The conviction otappellant No. 1 under Sec-;.-:
tion 25 (1 B) (a) read with Se'ctio'n' 3 of the Arms Act has been .
set as1'de.·. " ·~ · "' .,., ' · ·· · ·
. ~ "-,· .... ,~il·.\~4C' ·i··i·.. 1,t~,'-;_... ""'

d :<3; Briefly stated, the facts' of th'eprosecution case are that 1
on 23.01.1999 at about 1o:oo a:m.'complainahtBahadur Singh' E
(P.W. 14)along with Rakesh (P.W. 2) and Ram yaran Sirign (P.W..
9) (both hostile witnesses) was excavatin'g sand oflthe bank of ·
river Devipura·near village Duhia Chak. Appellant No. 2 armed '
with:12 bO're· gun:' his·crothe(Appellanl No.' farmed with' t<atta -· ~
(cou·nfry made fire-arm) 1and Ra'ni'·Avatar~accused holding·: •F
pharsa ih ·his hand ca'i'ne·to the spofand ·started ab'usihg the
complainant'(P.W. 4).'P.W.·4-told them'that hewas extracting
sand from government land: It was alleged·tharRam AVatar~: T
accused gave pharsa blow which caused injury to the calf-ankle
o{complainant's Jett leg, back and knee. Appeilant No .. 2 fired .G ·
gu_n ,sh6twh\ch hit on the wrjst of right hand o(the COmRlainant ·.:
whereas Appellant No. 1 fired pellets from kattawhich hit the ,
head and forehead of.Bahadur Singh, who as a result of receiv•. ,.
ing.the injuries feJI on the ground. All the three accused persons .
the'reafter ran away· from the sceri'e of occurrence. H "
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A 4. Injured Bahadur Singh lodged First Information Report
(Exhibit- P5) on the same day at Police Station, Bijoli. He was
sent to the hospital for medical examination. Investigation of
the case was conducted by Assistant Sub-Inspector Babu Ram
Sharma (P.W. 10) on the spot. During investigation, he seized
B one brass cartridge and recorded the statements of the wit- -...
nesses. Sub-Inspector Ashok Tiwari (P.W. 14) arrested Appel-
lant No. 1 on 08.02.1999 and recorded his disclosure state-
ment (Exhibit- P11 ). Pursuant thereto, 'Katta' which was being
used by him at the time of occurrence of the offence, was pro-
C duced from a hidden place at the back of 'kothi' constructed in
the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Ram Avatar was arrested on
08.02.1999 and on his statement; pharsa was recovered from
the field of Majboot Singh Jaat. Pistol allegedly used by Appel-
lant No. 2 was examined by Santosh Singh (P.W. 11) in D.R.P.
D Line, Gwalior, who certified that the said pistol was in running
condition as per his Report (Exhibit- P18). Brij Mohan Sharma,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (P.W. 12) produced on record per-
mission (Exhibit -P19) to prosecute the accused under the
Arms Act. On receipt of Injury Report and X-Ray Report pre-
pared by Dr. Purshottam Jaju (P.W. 5) and Dr. Avinash Naidu
E (P.W. 6) and completion of the investigation, charge sheet was
filed against the above said three accused in the Court of First
Class Magistrate. The Magistrate committed the trial of the case
to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge
assigned the trial of the case to the Special Judge (NDPS) -
F cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. The accused per-
sons were charge sheeted under Section 307 read with Sec-
tion 34 IPC, Section 25(1 B) (a} and Section 3 of the Arms Act.
The accused denied charges and claim to be tried.
5. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 14
G witnesses. The trial court, on analysis of the entire evidence on
record, convicted all the three accused for offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In addition, Ap-
pellant No. 1 was convicted under Section 25 (1 B) (a) read with
Section 3 of the Arms Act. Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to
H
MANOJ & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA 993
) PRADESH [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine A
of Rs. 1000/- under Section 307 !PC and one year rigorous
· --imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section
25 (1 B) (a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act. In default of
payment of fine, he has been ordered to suffer three months'
-{ imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 and Ram Avatar (Accused Nos. B
3 and 2) were sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprison-
ment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under Section
307 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine,
both the accused persons were ordered to six months' impris-
onment. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been C
ordered to be paid to the complainant - P.W. 4.
6. Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2 preferred Criminal
appeal No. 63112000 whereas Ram Avatar filed Criminal Ap-
peal No. 650/2000 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Bench at Gwalior. The lear.ned Single Judge of the High Court D
·-t
partly allowed the appeals and altered the conviction from un-
der Section 307 !PC to Section 324 IPC and imposed the afore-
said sentence upon them. The High Court acquitted Appellant
No. 1 in respect of the offence under the Arms Act.
7. Now, Appellant No. 1 and his brother Appellant No. 2 E
have filed this appeal by way of special leave. It appears that
no appeal has been filed by Ram Avatar-accused against the
judgment and order of the High Court.
8. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court F
on 10.03.2008, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the parties had agreed to compound the offence
and in that view of the matter, notice was issued to the respon-
dent-State and also to Bahadur Singh - complainant.
9. The appellants have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Peti- G
tion No. 4257/2008 praying for permission to compound the
offence with the complainant. They have inter alia stated that
they and complainant - P.W. 4 are neighbours and are residing
in the same village. Af1er the alleged incident, the complainant
and the appellants have come into close relations just like fam- H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S. C.R.

A ily members and they want to reside peacefully in future without
any kind of disruption in their future life. Having considered their
close relations amongst themselves, one village panchayatwas
held in the village in which the complainant has agreed to com-
pound the offence with the appellants as now he has no griev-
8 ance against the appellants.
10. Complainant Bahadur Singh has filed an affidavit (An-
nexure..,..P3) dated 16.01.2008. The complainant has stated in
the said affidavit that on his complaint a case was registered
against the appellants Manoj, Bijendra Singh and accused Ram
C Avatar which has resulted in the conviction of the accused per-
sons. He stated that Manoj and Bijendra Singh are residents of
his village and the village people have got their disputes com-
promisE~d by holding a village panchayat and now they would
desire to live peacefully and that at present no dispute exists
D between them.
11. Heard Shri Jai Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for
the appellants, Shri R.P. Gupta, learned senior counsel for re-
spondent-State and Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav for complain-
E ant-Bahadur Singh. The learned counsel for the complainant
stated before us that the complainant has compromised the
case with the appellants and in that view of the matter their ap-
peal may be accepted.
12. We have examined the provisions of Section 320 of
F the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'the Cr.P.C.'] which
deals with compounding of offences. Section 320(1) of the Cr.
P.C. provides that the offences punishable under the Sections
of Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the
Table next following may be compounded by the persons men-
G tioned in the third column of that Table. Under sub-Section (2)
of Section 320, offences punishable under the Sections of the
Indian Penal Code, specified in the first two columns of the Table
next following may, with the permission of the Court before which
any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded
H by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. Vol-
MANOJ & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA 995
PRADESH [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
untarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means by the A
accused constitutes an offence under Section 324 IPC which
can be compounded by person to whom hurt is caused with the
permission of the Court in ·terms of. sub-Section (2) of Section
320 Cr.P.C.
13. It requires to be noticed that Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, ·B
2005 [Act 'No.25/2005f amehded Section' 320 of the Code and
in the Table under sub-Section (2) (a) the words "voluntarily caus-
ing hurt by dangerous weapons or means" in column 1 and the
entries relating thereto in columns 2 and 3 has been omitted.
But the said amendment by Act No. ·25 of 2005 has not yet been C
brought into force. Therefore, the offence und~H 324 is still com-
poundable with the permission of the Court,
14. The appellants and the complainant are residents of
the same village and with the interv~ntion of the village
panchayat the complainanthas compounded the offence with D
the appellants and now he has no grievance againstthem: The
appellants and the complainant have categorically stated in 'their
affidavits filed before us that after the incident they have devel-
oped family relations and they wish to re~ide peacefully in the
village in future without any kind of disruption in their future lives. E
15. We are satisfied that the complainanthas voluntarily
·desired to compound the offence with the.appellants for suffi-
. cient and genuine reasons stated in their respective affidavits
'and such .compounding
.· .·.
is .1legal. and valid. We ailow .the
·
parties .F
to compouna the offence under Section 324 IPC. Criminal Mis-
cellafleou~ 'Petition No. 4257tiboa stands, accordingly, ·allowed.
'in view of the compounding, the conviction andsentence is set
aside. The appellants, who 'ar_e in jail undergoing sentence, shall
be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. The ap- G
peal is dispo~ed of accordingly.' • , ;i,,.
"
K.K.T. ' '· Appeal disposed of.

• ! \1· '' . i ... ~ :, J I •