LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the offense under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be compounded, and whether the conviction under this section was justified.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs. The State of Odisha & Anr.
Judgment Date: 11 February 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 73
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a court allow the compounding of an offense under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), especially when the accused are police officers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of custodial violence. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction under Section 324 IPC and whether the offense could be compounded given the circumstances. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the judgment.
Case Background
The case originated from an incident on May 4, 1985, when Kusia Naik (PW.1) and Kasinath Naik (the deceased) went to Purighat Police Station in Cuttack, Odisha. Kusia Naik had been informed by his wife that some people had abused her and told her to drive out her family. He was also informed that the police had called him to the police station. Upon reaching the police station, a police officer allegedly used abusive language against the deceased and assaulted him. Kusia Naik witnessed the deceased being beaten by the police officers, including the appellants, Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Choudhury. The deceased sustained severe injuries and was taken to the hospital, where he died.
The prosecution contended that the appellants, who were police officers, had fabricated a false FIR to cover up their actions. The defense claimed that the deceased had come to the police station to lodge a complaint about an assault that occurred earlier that day. However, the High Court found that the FIR was forged and that the deceased had been assaulted inside the police station.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 2, 1985 | Kusia Naik goes to Nayagarh for his nephew’s marriage. |
| May 4, 1985 | Kusia Naik returns to Cuttack and is informed about the quarrel and police summons. |
| May 4, 1985 (Evening) | Kusia Naik and Kasinath Naik go to Purighat Police Station and are assaulted. |
| May 4/5, 1985 (Night) | Kasinath Naik is taken to the hospital and dies. |
| May 5, 1985 (11 AM) | Kusia Naik lodges the FIR (Ext.1) at the police station. |
| August 29, 1988 | Sessions Court convicts the accused. |
| November 9, 2020 | Orissa High Court partly allows the appeals. |
| December 17, 2020 | Supreme Court hears the case and orders compensation deposit. |
| January 8, 2021 | Legal heirs of the deceased agree to the compensation proposal. |
| February 4, 2021 | Supreme Court hears the appeals. |
| February 11, 2021 | Supreme Court delivers the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Court convicted Pratap Kumar Choudhury under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC, sentencing him to eight years of rigorous imprisonment (RI), and Pravat Chandra Mohanty under the same section to five years of RI. Both were also sentenced for offenses under Sections 471, 342, and 323 of the IPC.
The Orissa High Court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the conviction under Section 304 (Part II) and Section 342/34 IPC, but upheld the conviction under Sections 323/34 and 471/34 IPC. The High Court also convicted both appellants under Section 324/34 IPC, sentencing them to simple imprisonment.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provisions discussed in this judgment are:
-
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It states:
“Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
-
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section provides for the compounding of offenses. Sub-section (2) allows certain offenses to be compounded with the permission of the court, while sub-section (5) states that when an appeal is pending, no composition for the offense shall be allowed without the leave of the Court.
“320(2). The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the permission of Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table.”
“320(5). When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.”
Arguments
The appellants, represented by Shri R. Basant and Shri Yasobant Das, primarily argued that:
- The conviction under Section 324 IPC was unsustainable as the weapons used (wooden batten/lathi) were not likely to cause death. They contended that the conviction should be converted to Section 323 IPC, which deals with simple hurt.
- The alleged weapons of offense were not shown to PW.1 for identification during the trial.
- There were material contradictions in the statement of PW.1, making his evidence unreliable.
- The offense under Section 324 IPC was compoundable on the date of the incident (May 4, 1985), and since the appellants were willing to compensate the family of the deceased, the offense should be compounded.
The State of Odisha, represented by Shri Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, submitted that:
- The State had completed the necessary formalities to pay the compensation as directed by the High Court.
The legal representatives of the deceased, represented by Ms. Priyanka Vora, agreed to the proposal made by the appellants regarding compensation.
The innovativeness in the argument by the appellants was their plea to compound the offense under Section 324 IPC, citing that it was compoundable at the time of the incident, and that they were willing to compensate the family of the deceased.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by State | Sub-Submissions by Legal Representatives |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conviction under Section 324 IPC | ✓ Weapons used were not likely to cause death. ✓ Conviction should be under Section 323 IPC. ✓ Weapons not shown to PW.1 for identification. ✓ Contradictions in PW.1’s statement. |
||
| Compounding of Offence | ✓ Offence was compoundable on the date of incident. ✓ Appellants are willing to compensate the family. |
✓ Agreed to compensation proposal. | |
| Compensation | ✓ Appellants deposited Rs. 3.5 lakhs each as compensation. | ✓ State completed formalities to pay compensation as directed by High Court. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the conviction under Section 324 IPC was justified.
- Whether the offense under Section 324 IPC could be compounded under Section 320 of the CrPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction under Section 324 IPC was justified. | Upheld | The Court found that the wooden lathi and batten used by the police officers were capable of causing death, depending on the manner of use. The Court also noted that the non-showing of the weapons to PW.1 was not fatal to the prosecution. |
| Whether the offense under Section 324 IPC could be compounded under Section 320 of the CrPC. | Denied | The Court held that while the offense was compoundable on the date of the incident, the leave of the Court was required for compounding. The Court refused to grant leave, citing the nature of the offense and the fact that the accused were police officers who had committed custodial violence. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Provincial Government, Central Provinces and Berar vs. Bipin Singh Choudhary, AIR (1945) Nagpur, Oudh, Peshawar & Sind 104 | Nagpur High Court | The Court relied on this judgment to emphasize that when public servants abuse their position, it becomes a matter of great public concern, and composition should be refused. |
| Yashwant and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 571 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to highlight that when police officers violate the law, the punishment should be stringent to deter such acts and instill confidence in society. |
| Gulab Das and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 10 SCC 765 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to note that even when the prayer for composition is declined, the Court can consider the question of sentence. |
| Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to support the view that while compounding of a non-compoundable offense is not permissible, the fact of compromise between parties can be considered for reducing the sentence. |
| Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | The Court analysed the provision to determine whether the use of wooden lathi and batten would come under the ambit of dangerous weapons. |
| Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Statute | The Court analysed the provision to determine whether the offence under Section 324 IPC can be compounded. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC, finding that the wooden lathi and batten used by the police officers were capable of causing death depending on the manner of use. The Court rejected the argument that these were not dangerous weapons.
The Court refused to allow the compounding of the offense under Section 324 IPC. While acknowledging that the offense was compoundable at the time of the incident, the Court emphasized that the leave of the court is necessary for compounding, especially in cases involving public servants abusing their position. The Court highlighted the custodial violence and its impact on society as reasons for denying the compounding.
The Court, however, reduced the sentence awarded for conviction under Section 324 IPC from one year to six months, considering that the appellants were now over 75 years of age. Additionally, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3.5 lakhs each to be given to the legal heirs of the deceased, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the High Court.
| Submission by Appellants | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Conviction under Section 324 IPC is unsustainable as the weapons used were not likely to cause death. | Rejected. The Court held that wooden lathi and batten could cause death depending on the manner of use. |
| The alleged weapons of offense were not shown to PW.1 for identification during the trial. | Rejected. The Court stated that non-showing of the weapons to PW.1 was not fatal to the prosecution. |
| There were material contradictions in the statement of PW.1, making his evidence unreliable. | Rejected. The Court found PW.1’s evidence to be reliable. |
| The offense under Section 324 IPC was compoundable on the date of the incident and should be compounded. | Rejected. The Court refused to grant leave for compounding, citing the nature of the offense and the fact that the accused were police officers who had committed custodial violence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Provincial Government, Central Provinces and Berar vs. Bipin Singh Choudhary, AIR (1945) Nagpur, Oudh, Peshawar & Sind 104: The Court endorsed the view that when public servants abuse their position, it becomes a matter of great public concern and composition should be refused.
- Yashwant and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 571: The Court applied the principle that when police officers violate the law, the punishment should be stringent to deter such acts and instill confidence in society.
- Gulab Das and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 10 SCC 765: The Court used this case to justify considering the question of sentence even when the prayer for composition is declined.
- Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667: The Court followed the principle that while compounding a non-compoundable offense is not permissible, the fact of compromise between parties can be considered for reducing the sentence.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the severity of the offense, the position of the accused as police officers, and the need to maintain public trust in law enforcement. The Court emphasized that the custodial violence was a matter of great public concern and that such offenses cannot be compounded lightly.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was deeply influenced by several factors in reaching its decision. The primary concern was the severity of the custodial violence inflicted by the police officers. The court emphasized that the police, as protectors of law and order, have a duty to safeguard the public rather than perpetrate violence. The fact that the accused were police officers who abused their position of power weighed heavily on the court’s decision to deny the compounding of the offense. The need to maintain public trust in the police force and to send a strong message against custodial violence was also a significant factor. The Court’s decision reflects a strong stance against the abuse of power by law enforcement and the importance of upholding the rights of citizens.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Severity of Custodial Violence | 40% |
| Abuse of Power by Police Officers | 30% |
| Need to Maintain Public Trust | 20% |
| Deterrence of Future Custodial Violence | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the brutal nature of the assault and the abuse of power by the police officers (60%), than by the purely legal considerations (40%).
Key Takeaways
- Custodial Violence: The judgment sends a strong message against custodial violence, emphasizing that police officers are protectors of law and order, not perpetrators of violence.
- Compounding of Offenses: The decision clarifies that compounding of offenses, especially those involving public servants, requires careful consideration by the court, not just the agreement of the parties.
- Stringent Punishment: The court highlighted that police officers who violate the law should be punished stringently to deter such acts and to maintain public trust.
- Compensation: The court enhanced the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, acknowledging the inadequacy of the initial compensation.
- Age of Accused: While not a reason to compound the offense, the age of the accused was a factor in reducing the sentence awarded.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- The compensation deposited by the appellants (Rs. 3.5 lakhs each) should be remitted to the trial court.
- The trial court should disburse the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, which includes two living sons and the heirs of two deceased sons.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the courts should be very cautious while allowing the compounding of offenses, particularly when the accused are public servants who have abused their position. This judgment reinforces the principle that custodial violence is not only a crime against the individual but also against society, and that such actions cannot be condoned. The Supreme Court’s decision also clarifies that the age of the accused, while a factor in sentencing, does not automatically lead to the compounding of serious offenses. While the court did not alter any previous position of law, it clarified the interpretation of Section 320 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the leave of the court is not a mere formality but a careful consideration of the nature of the offense and the public interest.
Conclusion
In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 324 IPC, finding that the wooden lathi and batten used by the police officers were capable of causing death. The court refused to allow the compounding of the offense, emphasizing that custodial violence by police officers is a matter of great public concern. However, the court reduced the sentence from one year to six months and enhanced the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. This judgment serves as a reminder that the police are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting citizens, and any abuse of power will be met with stringent action by the judiciary.