- (1.)The appellants, along with three other accused persons, were convicted u/s. 498A read with Sec. 34 of the Penal Code (for short "IPC") by the trial court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The other three accused persons were also convicted u/s. 307 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as Accused 1 (Dilip Kumar Deb) is concerned, he was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years; whereas the other two accused persons, namely, Accused 3 (Ranubala Deb) and Accused 4 (Meenubala Deb) were awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. All the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence, the special leave petition was filed by all the five accused persons. So far as the special leave petition filed on behalf of the three accused persons is concerned, the same was dismissed; whereas leave was granted in relation to the two appellants, namely, Badal Deb and Subarna Bala Deb.
(2.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.)Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants first tried to pursuade us for rendering order of acquittal in relation to the appellants. It appears that this Court, by rejecting special leave petition in relation to the other three accused persons, has confirmed their conviction u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well. So far as the appellants are concerned, we do not find any point of distinction in the case of the appellants vis-a-vis the other three accused persons whose conviction u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed. Learned counsel next submitted that the appellants have remined in custody for a period of more than two months and in the present case an affidavit has been filed by the victim stating therein that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. The offence u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. It is well settled that if an offence is not compoundable, permission cannot be accorded to record the compromise, but effect of the same can be taken into consideration while awarding sentence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.