Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 109 r/w Sections 376 and 342 read with 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 320 – Compounding of offence – Compromise between parties – Offence under Section 376 IPC falls in category of serious and heinous offences and is treated as crime against society and not against an individual alone – Rape is the most morally and physically reprehensible crime in a society – It is an assault on body, mind and privacy of victim – Settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all in such offences – Any compromise between victim and offender in relation to such offences, cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings – Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society – On the basis of compromise/settlement between appellants herein and t respondent No.2, order of conviction cannot be set aside nor appellants can be acquitted of offences for which there is conviction, by allowing appeal on any settlement – I.A. rejected. (Paras 15, 16, 24 and 25)
Result: Application rejected.
Catch Words :Cases Referred:
Counsel for the Parties:For the Petitioner: Sri A. Rama Krishna, AdvocateFor the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Sri K. Suresh Reddy, AdvocateFor the Respondent No.3: Sri S. Venkata Sainath, Special Assistant P.P.
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S. Venkata Sainath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and Sri A. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. The appellant No.1 herein was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 342, 417 and 420 IPC. The appellant No.2 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w Sections 376 and 342 read with 34 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 23.10.2017 in Session Case No.217 of 2013 by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada.
3. The application I.A.No.2 of 2021 is filed with the following prayer:
“Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/2nd respondent to compromise the matter with the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.217 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.”
4. The joint memo has been filed by both the parties i.e., by the petitioners 1 & 2 and the 2nd respondent, stating in paragraph No.2 thereof as under:—
“2. It is further humbly submitted that, the 2nd respondent and petitioner No.2 are close friends having studied together while we are prosecuting BeD. The 2nd respondent and petitioner No.1 fell in love and they decided to marry, but due to obvious reasons it was not materialized. Due to some misunderstandings respondent No.2 gave a report to the police which resulted in punishing the petitioners. While the matter stood thus, the well-wishers, elders from both sides including community people convened a meeting and reprimanded both to put an end to the unnecessary ill feelings in the minds of both parties in order to