In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that attempt to murder cases, though non-compoundable, may be quashed under certain circumstances if a settlement is reached between the parties. Justice A Badharudeen made this observation in the case of Arshad v. State of Kerala & Anr., providing clarity on the applicability of settlements in cases involving Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
While acknowledging the serious nature of the offence under Section 307 IPC, Justice Badharudeen emphasized that settlements in such cases should be considered judiciously and only after the final report is filed. He laid out specific criteria for courts to assess before accepting a settlement, stating:
“When the courts, while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the Court should go by the nature of injuries sustained, the part of the body where the injuries were inflicted with specific attention to see whether the injuries caused are on the vital/delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapons used etc.”
The judgment further clarified that courts must evaluate whether the injuries and other evidence strongly suggest an attempt to murder. If so, settlement should not be entertained. However, if it appears that the inclusion of Section 307 IPC was unwarranted, the court may consider quashing the case based on a settlement.
The case in question involved Arshad, who was accused of attempting to murder a woman with whom he had been in a relationship. Allegedly, he stabbed the woman on her shoulder during a confrontation, stating, “I will kill you.” Despite the gravity of the charge, both Arshad and the complainant-woman informed the court that they had resolved the matter amicably, and the woman expressed no desire to pursue the case further.
The court, upon reviewing the medical reports, noted that the injuries were not on vital parts of the body. Consequently, it concluded that the allegation of an attempt to murder was prima facie unsubstantiated.
“Therefore, I am inclined to allow the prayer for quashment at the instance of the petitioner, on the strength of settlement, where the injured person supported settlement,” Justice Badharudeen stated in his order.
The court’s decision highlights a nuanced approach to handling non-compoundable offences, balancing legal principles with the realities of individual cases.
The petitioner, Arshad, was represented by Advocate K Reeha Khader, while Advocate N Jishine Babu appeared for the complainant. Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George opposed the quashing but acknowledged the settlement.
Case: Arshad vs State of Kerala & Anr. – Available on LAWFYI.IO
