MATHURA SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

MATHURA SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Since offences are compoundable and parties have volunteered to compound them for genuine reasons, conviction and sentence are set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Mathura Singh & Ors.; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2009 / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 31.03.2008 of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; conviction and sentence set aside.
Legal Topics
Compounding of Offences, Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC
Criminal Law Compounding of Offences Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathura Singh & Ors.

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2009 / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 31.03.2008 of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether offences under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC may be compounded and whether such compounding warrants setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

Since offences are compoundable and parties have volunteered to compound them for genuine reasons, conviction and sentence are set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • Permission granted for compounding offences under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC
  • Conviction and sentence set aside