Even After Conviction You Can Be Acquitted On The Basis Of A Compromise

Stay of Conviction

 

To compound means “to settle a matter by a money payment, in lieu of other liability.” In criminal law, the power to compound the offence is at the discretion of the victim. The perpetrator cannot demand for compounding of the offence.

Section 320 of Cr. P.C. provides a list of offences which are compoundable directly and clause (2) provides a list which may be compounded with the permission of the court. Compounding has been permitted during the stage of Appeal and revision in High Court or Supreme Court, but if the accused is a previous convict and he is liable to enhanced or different kinds of punishment from the ordinary punishment then compounding is not permitted. It has been further mentioned in this section that the effect of compounding shall be deemed to be the acquittal of the case.

 

CASE LAW BY SINGH LAWYERS

 

KULWINDER SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

CRR No.1233 of 2017 (O&M) with CRR No.1317 of 2017 (O&M), Date of Decision: 01.05.2017

Mr. Navkiran Singh and Mr. Navratan Singh Advocates for the petitioners.

FACTS: A student of Panjab University, Chandigarh alleged that he had been duped of a sum of Rs.10 lacs by the accused party on the pretext of giving handsome returns. Trial Court recorded a judgement of conviction dated 30.1.2015 holding each one of the accused guilty for offence punishable under sections 406 and 120-B I.P.C and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years in each offence and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs in total (each Rs.2.5 lacs) to the complainant. The accused were, however, acquitted of the charge framed under section 420 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence.

 

Hon’ble Court observed that,

During the pendency of these two revision petitions, an application has been moved for compounding of the offence under sections 406, 120-B I.P.C on the ground that a compromise dated 3.4.2017 has been effected by the petitioners in these two revision petitions with the complainant i.e. Amanpreet Singh. The compromise deed dated 3.4.2017 was also placed on record at Annexure A-1…………Counsel for the parties are ad idem that a compromise has been arrived at between the three petitioners in these two connected petitions i.e. Kulwinder Singh, Baljit Singh and Raghbir Singh as also the complainant namely Amanpreet Singh for a sum of Rs.24 lacs. Such amount is stated to have already been made over to the complainant party vide demand draft no.377597 drawn on IndusInd Bank. Court has further been informed that the forth accused/convict namely Yadvinder Singh Buttar has absented himself from the trial proceedings and in any case the present compromise is not qua him.

Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant Amanpreet Singh has no objection with regard to the prayer made on behalf of the three petitioners in these two connected petitions as regards compounding of the offence and states that a compromise has been effected between the parties and the same stands implemented in full.

 

Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court held that

the offence under sections 406 and 120-B I.P.C qua the present petitioners in both these revision petitions are compounded and the conviction and sentence of the petitioners is set aside.”

Complete copy of order

 

PDF icon