“SERIOUS AND HEINOUS CRIME” EXPLAINED BY BOMBAY HC
“SERIOUS AND HEINOUS CRIME” EXPLAINED BY BOMBAY HC
-Tushika Priyadarshini
BACKGROUND:
The term "Serious and Heinous Crime" is not defined in Indian Penal Code or any other statute. However, the word has been interpreted numerous times by the judges in the series of judgments. Heinous crimes are those crimes that give a blow to communal integrity of society. Definition of “heinous crime” can be related from REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION at :
Any person guilty for any monstrous, Serious and Heinous crime like murder, rape, smuggling, dacoity, etc. should be permanently debarred from contesting for any political office.
The recent case which came before the Bombay High Court was from a fight that broke out between two groups. The Court established that the wrangle involved the use of lethal weapons such as swords, knives and iron rods, leading to serious injuries and even fatalities and hospitalization of persons.
Charges:
The criminal complaint lodged in the matter recorded charges under Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 326 (causing grievous hurt),section 143, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. Both groups alleged that they had been aggravated into the fight by the other.
However, during the course of the investigation, both
sides arrived at a concession. This led them to approach the Bombay High Court
to crush the criminal case.
Now the question of law which arose before the court was
that whether the cases involving a compromise between the parties could be
cited to quash the cases involving heinous
and serious crimes that have an influence on society as a whole?
CURRENT ISSUE:
1- Section 320 of the CrPC provides for compounding of certain offences which are punishable under the IPC.
2- Section 482 of the CrPC deliberates essential powers on a high court to pass orders to (a) give effect to the CrPC; (b) prevent abuse of the process of any court; or (c) otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in both the
petitions submitted that the tussle between the parties happened on the spur of
moment. The petitioners realised that it is essential to patch up the
disagreement between them to preserve the cordial relations between them in
future as well as in the interest of the community at large. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no chance to record conviction
against the accused persons and the entire exercise of trial would be an
pointless efforts if the parties had already reached to an amicable settlement
of dispute. Therefore, it would be justified to compound the offence on the
basis of concession arrived at between the petitioners accused and the complainant.
The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the various judgments delineated by the honorable Supreme Court:
1- Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 446;
2- State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. 2019 SCC Online SC 320,
3- State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalyan Singh & Ors. 2019 AIR (SC)312;
4- Gulab Das and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCALE 625;
5- An unreported judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Parbatbhai Aahir @Parbatbhai Bhimsinbhai Karmur and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017.”
The High Court, however, declined their prayer,
because the offences under section 307 and 326 of IPC are held serious and
heinous offences in the eye of law, which would cause social impact. It is not in dispute that the offence
punishable under Section 307 and 326 are non-compoundable as per Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. The allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution against the
petitioners are serious and heinous in nature. The petitioners attacked the
complainant with lethal weapons like sword, knife, iron rod, etc. and inflicted
fatal injuries on the vital part of body. The court taking into consideration
the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikaram Anantrao Joshi, reported in
2014(15) SCC 29, further added that, “It is a rule of law that
while dealing with the application to compound the offences, on the ground of
compromise, it is essential to take into consideration the distinction between
the personal and private offences and its impact on the society at large”.
It proceeded to highlight
that Section 307 IPC has been recognised as a serious and heinous offence in
a number of cases. The Bench went on to observe,
"Heinous and Serious Crime involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. It has been observed that such offences are not private in nature but have a serious impact on the society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases, is founded on the overriding elements of public interest in punishing persons involved in serious offences."
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the court aforesaid that, “We are not prepared to exercise inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in favor of petitioners, even though they have resolved the dispute amicably in between them. As a result, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. This further urged the Court to conclude that the case could not be reduced to private offences. Therefore, the Court dismissed the plea for quashing the criminal case on grounds of a compromise. The prosecution shall proceed further with the criminal proceedings registered against the petitioners, in accordance with law.
Comments
Post a Comment