Read Time: 04 minutes
Application for compounding offence under Section 337 IPC, 1860 was allowed by the Court parallel to the application admitting guilt for offence under Section 279 IPC, moved by the accused
A court in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently sentenced an accused under Section 279 of the Penal Code, 1860 [Rash driving on public way] to undergo simple imprisonment for 11 days. Interestingly, punishment imposed was pursuant to his own confession as the offence under section 337 of the Penal Code, 1860 [Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others] was already compounded upon an application moved by mother of the injured child.
Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, while recording confession of the accused, observed,
“Considering the aggravating as well as the mitigating factors of the case, the convict Yasir Arfat is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 11 days for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.”
On 28.09.2022, the accused was found driving in a rash and negligent manner.
Reaching around Zelna Kishtwar, he could not control the speed of his vehicle and caused accident, hurting a minor boy and his mother.
The accused and the mother of the minor moved two applications –
i) for compounding the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC (filed by the mother), and,
ii) for making a confession for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC (filed by the accused)
“Since the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC is compoundable in nature with permission of the Court on behalf of minor. Permission sought is granted and in view of statement of mother of injured child, the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC is compounded as a sequel thereto the accused is acquitted of offences punishable under Section 337 of IPC”, Court said while allowing the application by mother of the victim child.
Counsel for the accused submitted that since he was a first-time offender, a lenient view may be taken, however, Ld. APP demanded strictest punishment for the convict to deter him and other like-minded persons, as such incidents were coming up in a routine manner before the courts.
Case Title: UT through SHO P/S Kishtwar v. Yasir Arfat
Please Login or Register