Supreme Court allows compounding of offence under Section 354 IPC in molestation case: P. Ramaswamy vs. State (2013)

Date of the Judgment: 9th May 2013
Citation: P. Ramaswamy vs. State (U.T.) of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 2013, 2013 INSC 326
Judges: Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai

Can a case of molestation be resolved through a compromise? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the parties sought to compound an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This judgment highlights the court’s willingness to consider amicable settlements, especially when the parties involved have reconciled. The case involved an appeal against a High Court decision that had refused to allow the compounding of the offence after the judgment was delivered.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint lodged by Dr. Harold Charles (PW-3) at the Car Nicobar Police Station. The complaint, registered as FIR No. 10 of 2004, alleged that on March 15, 2004, the appellant, P. Ramaswamy, molested Dr. Charles’s daughter (PW6), the victim, in his shop. The victim had gone to the shop to buy some eatables when the incident occurred. After the victim narrated the incident to her father, Dr. Charles confronted the appellant, who initially denied the incident but later admitted and apologized.

Based on the FIR, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant. The trial court framed a charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act). However, no charge was framed under Section 354 of the IPC. After examining eight witnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST Act, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000.

The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court found that there was no evidence to prove that the victim was targeted because she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST Act were not met. However, the High Court concluded that the ingredients of an offence under Section 354 of the IPC were present, even though no specific charge was framed for it. The High Court modified the conviction to Section 354 of the IPC, reducing the sentence to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST Act. The High Court, in appeal, modified the conviction to Section 354 of the IPC, finding that the ingredients of the latter offence were met. Following this, the appellant, the complainant, and the victim sought to compound the offence, stating that they had reached a compromise. However, the High Court rejected their application, stating that it had become functus officio after delivering the judgment and could not entertain any further applications. The High Court directed the parties to approach the Supreme Court for relief.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act), along with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

• Section 354 of the IPC deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.
• Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST Act addresses atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 320 of the CrPC deals with the compounding of offences. Specifically, it allows for certain offences, including Section 354 of the IPC, to be compounded by the victim.

The High Court had observed that while the charge was framed under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST Act, the facts also disclosed an offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The court noted that Section 354 of the IPC is a lesser offence compared to Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST Act.

Arguments

The appellant, the complainant, and the victim all submitted that they had reached a compromise and wished to compound the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

• The appellant argued that he was 67 years old and his pensionary benefits were being withheld due to the case. He sought permission to compound the offence to resolve the matter amicably.
• The complainant stated that he and his daughter had compromised the case with the appellant and, therefore, they may be permitted to compound the offence.
• The victim also filed an application stating that since they were residents of the same village and the same locality and they had settled the matter, she did not want the appellant to be sent to jail. She prayed that permission be granted to compound the offence.

The primary argument was that the parties had reconciled and wanted to settle the matter peacefully. The victim, now an adult, also expressed her desire to compound the offence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the offence under Section 354 of the IPC can be compounded, considering the compromise between the appellant, the complainant, and the victim.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.
• Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act): This section addresses atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the compounding of offences. It specifies which offences are compoundable and by whom. Sub-section (8) states that the composition of an offence shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the compounding of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The Court noted that the victim had agreed to the compromise and that all parties resided in the same locality and wanted to live peacefully. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant had already served a substantial portion of his sentence.

The Supreme Court held that the offense under Section 354 of the IPC was compoundable by the victim. The Court stated:

“…Offence under Section 354 of the IPC is compoundable by the woman assaulted or to whom the criminal force was used. The victim has in her application filed in this Court prayed that permission be granted to compound the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.”

The Court further noted that the victim had prayed to compound the offence. The Court set aside the orders of the High Court and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 354 of the IPC.

The Court cited Section 320(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that the composition of an offence shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Compromise between the parties: The fact that the appellant, complainant, and victim had reached a compromise was a major factor in the Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements, especially in cases where the parties are willing to reconcile.
• Victim’s consent: The victim’s consent to compound the offence was crucial. As the person assaulted, her willingness to forgive and move on was given significant weight by the Court.
• Appellant’s age and circumstances: The appellant’s advanced age (67 years) and the fact that he had already served a substantial portion of his sentence were also considered by the Court.
• Peaceful resolution: The Court noted that all parties resided in the same locality and wanted to live peacefully. This desire for a peaceful resolution was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the specific facts of the case, the relevant legal provisions, and the desire to promote amicable settlements. The Court prioritized the victim’s consent and the overall goal of achieving a peaceful resolution.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Offences under Section 354 of the IPC can be compounded by the victim, provided the victim consents to it.
• ✓ Courts are willing to consider amicable settlements, especially in cases where the parties have reconciled.
• ✓ The consent of the victim is a crucial factor in allowing the compounding of offences.
• ✓ The age and circumstances of the accused may also be considered by the court while deciding on compounding.
• ✓ The Supreme Court can set aside High Court orders to allow compounding of offences, if the facts and circumstances warrant it.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that if the appellant was still in jail, he should be released immediately unless required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that offences under Section 354 of the IPC are compoundable by the victim, and the court has the power to allow such compounding, especially when the parties have reached a compromise and the victim consents to it. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and highlights the court’s preference for amicable settlements in appropriate cases. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the compounding of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, considering the compromise between the appellant, complainant, and victim. The Court emphasized the importance of amicable settlements and the victim’s consent in such matters. The judgment underscores the court’s willingness to facilitate peaceful resolutions and consider the specific circumstances of each case.