Chandu @ Ramchandra S/O ... vs State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 6759 Bom

 apeal270.02.J.odt                         1



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.270 OF 2002

          Chandu alias Ramchandra s/o Vishwanath
          Pimpalkar, R/o Babupeth, Ward No.2,
          Chandrapur.                 ....... APPELLANT

                                   ...V E R S U S...

          State of Maharashtra through
          Chandrapur City Police Station,
          Chandrapur.                               ....... RESPONDENT
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for Appellant.
          Shri N.B. Jawade, APP for Respondent/State.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          CORAM:            ROHIT B. DEO, J. 

          DATE:               th
                            4    SEPTEMBER, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT



 1]               The   appellant   is   assailing   the   judgment   dated

07.05.2002 in Sessions Case 10/1995 delivered by the 4 th

Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur convicting the appellant

for offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code

and imposing sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.

2] The appellant and the complainant Shri Sampat

Ankush Madavi are present before this Court. The learned counsel

Shri Vyas who appears for the appellant assures the Court that he

is satisfied about the identity of the complainant. This statement is

accepted.

3] The complainant-informant Shri Sampat Ankush

Madavi has filed on record an affidavit dated 04.09.2017 stating

that during the pendency of the criminal appeal the appellant and

the informant and their families have reconciled all differences.

The affidavit states that even during the pendency of the appeal

the family of the informant and the family of the appellant

enjoyed good relations, they used to meet regularly and celebrate

various functions together.

4] The informant prays that the criminal proceedings be

quashed in the light of the amicable relations and mutual

settlement of differences.

5] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right in

contending that the conviction cannot be quashed even under

section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the offence of

section 307 of the I.P.C. is not compoundable even with the

permission of the Court.

6] Shri Vyas, the learned counsel however, invites my

attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Manohar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 75 and

in particular to paragraph 8 which reads thus:

8. In the instant case, the appellant is convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment. He is convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Act and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment. Substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Even though the appellant and Respondent 2 wife have arrived at a compromise, the order of conviction cannot be quashed on that ground because the offences involved are non-compoundable. However, in such a situation if the court feels that the parties have a real desire to bury the hatchet in the interest of peace, it can reduce the sentence of the accused to the sentence already undergone. Section 498-A IPC does not prescribe any minimum punishment. Section 4 of the Dowry Act prescribes minimum punishment of six months but proviso thereto states that the court may, for adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may be less than six months. Therefore, sentence of the appellant can be reduced to sentence already undergone by him.

7] The incident occurred sometime in 1994. There is no

reason to disbelieve the statement on oath that the differences

between the families of the accused and the informant have been

sorted out and reconciled during the pendency of the appeal.

No minimum sentence is provided for offence punishable under

section 307 of the I.P.C.

8] On an overall view of the matter, and consistent with

the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Singh

vs. State of Madhya Pradesh supra, I am inclined to maintain the

conviction and to alter the sentence to imprisonment already

undergone as an under trial and then as a convict till this Court

granted bail.

9] The Criminal Appeal No.270/2002 is partly allowed

and disposed of as such.

JUDGE

NSN