LR NEWS 1898 DAILY

Can the courtroom deal with a non-composable crime as a composable crime?

Can the court treat a non-composable crime as a composable crime? written by Shatakshi Kakkar, student at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

SHANKAR V MAHARASHTRA STATE

INTRODUCTION:

The above case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is an appeal by the Bombay High Court. In this case, the applicants, i.e. Shankar, his wife Parvatibai and Vivek, were prosecuted under Section 436 of the IPC r / w, Section 34 of the Indian Criminal Code (IPC ) of 1860 (acts are carried out by several people with common intent) as § 323 IPC r / w § 34 IPC, ie for the offense of calamity by fire or an explosive substance and for voluntarily causing injuries. The case was decided in favor of the respondents or the complainants of the original case in both the Court and the High Court and therefore the complainants preferred this complaint.

PROBLEMS:

Since Vivek, ie the 2nd complainant, has no evidence against him for the obvious act of lighting the house of Namdeo, is it correct to convict him according to § 436 r / w § 34 IPC?
Can a criminal offense that is not originally composable under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) be treated as a composable criminal offense?

EVALUATION:

With regard to the first question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the second applicant, i.e. Vivek, has no evidence that he set the applicants’ home on fire, nor does he have any common intent with that of the first and the third appellant, d. H. Shankar and Parvatibai should not be held liable for the offense causing mischief by fire, i.e. Section 436 r / w Section 34 IPC, and therefore his conviction is overturned by the court.
In relation to the second question, it is not considered appropriate to aggravate a criminal offense that is not aggravated under the CrPC, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled in the following case that, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the relationship of The Court found it appropriate to aggravate an offense which in reality cannot be aggravated.
The Supreme Court took into account the precedent of various cases such as Ishwar Singh v Madhya Pradesh state [(2008) 15 SCC 667], Murugesan versus Ganapathy velar [(2001) 10 SCC 504], Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 9 SCC 255], Ishwarlal versus State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 671] and Mahesh Chand v Rajasthan State [1990 Supp SCC 681] concluding that if the parties to the case reach a compromise, due consideration should be given to such compromise, and if the facts and situations are viable and justified, the Court may convert an incompatible crime into a composable crime.
Therefore, in the following case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that the compromise reached between the parties is a more relevant one and that due consideration should also be given to the relationship between the parties. As a result of the compromise between the parties, the conviction of all three complainants under Section 323 IPC, that is, the voluntary violation, is waived for the remainder of the period and everything they have completed so far is deemed complete and they are acquitted of the charges. The second complainant, Vivek, is acquitted of the allegations of having caused fire damage according to § 436 IPC.

CONCLUSION:

The following case of Shankar v Maharashtra state restored the fact that even a non-composable offense, i.e. an offense for which there is no compromise available under the CrPC, can be turned into a composable offense, i.e. a crime with the parties can come to terms with a compromise case, if the Court is satisfied with such a compromise, taking due account of all the facts, problems and relationships.

Comments are closed.