Cannot accept compromise between accused and survivor after conviction under Section 354 IPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that it cannot grant credence to the compromise entered into by an accused with the survivor after he has been convicted for assault of the survivor-woman under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Bimal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura]..A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka dismissed the appeal filed by the convict against a judgment of the Tripura High Court. "We find no reason to grant any credence to such compromise which is being entered into after the conviction has been confirmed by the High Court under the judgment impugned," the apex court said. .The accused-appellant had been convicted by the trial court under Section 354 of the IPC and the same had been upheld by the Tripura High Court.As per the case registered against the accused, the survivor, aged 10 years had gone to a grocery shop. On her way, the accused met her and gave her ₹10 to buy a cake for him. When the victim bought him the cake, appellant called her to his house and groped her breast.When the girl objected to it, the petitioner tried to remove her panty. The girl immediately raised a hue and cry and left the place. After reaching home, she told everything to her mother. Subsequently, the mother of the girl reported the matter to police by lodging a First Information Report (FIR) against the appellant.The trial court had found the appellant guilty and had convicted him under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to one year and fine of ₹5,000. Before the Tripura High Court, the accused-appellant has submitted that after the incident occurred, the parties to the case amicably settled the matter since they were neighbours and they wanted to live in a harmonious relationship. Rejecting the said submissions, the High Court had upheld the conviction of the appellant..Before the top Court, the appellant again submitted that a compromise has been entered into between him and the complainant/victim.The Court, however, refused to take into consideration the same and dismissed the appeal..Advocate-on-Record Bhuvneshwari Pathak and Advocate Rahul Kaushik appeared on behalf of the appellant..[Read Order]