Saniboyina Appalakonda, v. State Of A.P.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.RC MP No.3502 of 2015 in Crl.RC No.223 of 2007 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.223 of 2007 Between:
Saniboyina Appalakonda ..... PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Crl.RC MP No.3502 of 2015 in Crl.RC No.223 of 2007 & CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.223 of 2007 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment in Crl.A.No.144/2006, dated 09.10.2006 on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada, by and under which, the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial Court was confirmed.
2. By judgment dated 12.06.2006, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram, in S.C.No.223/2005, convicted the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months.
3 . T h e de facto complainant is present. The petitioner/accused and her counsel are also present. Both parties had submitted that as both accused and the victim are co-daughter-in-laws and at present they were in cordial terms, they have entered into a compromise and settled the matter out of court, and hence both parties pray to permit the parties to compound the case and compromise the matter.
4. In Yogendra Yadav and others v. the State of Jharkhan the Supreme Court, in the matter of compromise of a non-compoundable offence, held as under: "The question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC, which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are noncompoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab {(2012) 10 SCC 303}). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section
482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings depending on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences, which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society.
However, when the High Court is convinced that t h e offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate t o quash them. I n such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle t h e compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."
5. The petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC, but not for any rape or murder. More over, the victim and accused are co-daughter-inlaws and they stated that they were compromised outside the Court at the intervention of family members and well-wishers. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties no purpose would be served in keeping the proceedings pending. In that view of the matter, permission is hereby accorded and the compromise is recorded following the decision of the Apex Court, referred to above, and in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another. 6 . Consequently, the judgment of the appellate Court dated 09.10.2006 in Crl.A.No.144 of 2006 as well as the judgment of the trial Court dated 12.06.2006 in S.C.No.223 of 2005 are set aside and the petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offence for which she was found guilty and convicted. The bail bonds of the petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner/accused.
7. The Crl.RC.MP.No.3502/2015 and Crl.RC.No.223/2007 are accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
__________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J
Date:07.10.2015 Dsr