Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2023
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J A B A L P U R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 20th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11868 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DEVENDRA SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI
DHEERAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DOCTOR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARNAWADA
POLICE STATION JAWAR DISTRICT
SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT, SR. ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ESHAAN
DATT - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION JAWAR
DISTRICT SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS. SHALINI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER AND SHRI RAHUL
KUMAR CHOURASIYA - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
RESERVED ON : 08.12.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.12.2023
2
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
on for pronouncement this day, this court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by
the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.09.2023 passed by
the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No. 17/2021 whereby
the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 324 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, under
Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of
Rs. 2,000/- and Section 307 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo
R.I. for four years (on each count) with fine of Rs. 4,000/-, with default
stipulations.
2. As per prosecution story, on 19.11.2020, appellant is alleged to have
committed marpeet with complainant Tej Singh Thakur and assaulted him
with a knife, due to which complainant party sustained various injuries.
Complainant filed FIR at the concerned police station. On the basis of which
the police registered the offence against appellant. After completion of the
investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Magistrate Court and
thereafter, matter was committed before the Sessions Court.
3. Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant. Appellant abjured
the guilt and pleaded for innocence. Thereafter, the trial Court took evidence
of the prosecution and defence and after hearing arguments of both the
parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences as stated
hereinabove vide impugned judgment.
4. The appellant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment filed this
instant appeal on various grounds.
5. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for
compounding of the offence. The said application was sent for verification
before the Registrar(Judicial). In compliance of said order, appellant and
complainant appeared before the Registrar (Judicial). The compromise was
verified and a report has been submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) before
this Court that appellant/accused and the complainant have entered into
compromise with mutual consent. Now there is no dispute remaining
between the appellant/accused and the complainants. But as per aforesaid
report, offence under Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as sentence is
concerned, the appellant has already undergone jail sentence from
20.11.2020 to 16.02.2021 and further from 11.09.2023 he is in jail till date.
7. Compromise has been already done between the parties, therefore, while
maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period
already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine on the basis of
compromise.
8. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer,
however, the learned counsel for complainant has no objection and fairly
admitted that they have entered into compromise in the case with the
appellant.
9. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits and of
conviction and confined their arguments as regards sentencing the appellant
on the basis of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the
view to examine sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through
the order of the trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the
eye-witnesses including injured persons, but also well supported by
medical testimony and documentary evidence adduced before the trial
Court. In view of evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of trial
Court regarding conviction appears to be sound with reasonings, therefore,
it does not warrant any inference. Accordingly, the finding with regard to
conviction under aforesaid sections is hereby confirmed.
10. So far as the offence under Section 323 and 325 of IPC are
concerned, it is compoundable with the leave of this Court. Since, there is no
public interest involved in this case, so leave for compromise is granted and
in the effect, the appellant is acquitted from the charges under Sections 323
and 325 of IPC on the basis of compromise.
11. Now, the Court is turning to the sentence part of non-compoundable
offence under Section 307 (two counts) of IPC and Section 324 of IPC and
the effect of compromise placed by the complainant/injured person. In the
case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr, 2014 (6)
SCC 466 relying on the various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the
compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal
proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.21 has observed as under:-
"21. However, we have some other cases decided by
this Court commenting upon the nature of offence
under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case
(supra), FIR was lodged under sections
147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The
matter was investigated and final report was
presented to the Court under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges.
At that stage, settlement was arrived at between
parties. The court accepted the settlement and
quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier
judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR SCW 5333 wherein the
court had observed that inherent powers under
section 482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no
statutory limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to
secure the needs of justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of
process of the court. While doing so, commenting
upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court
observed:
"Since the offences involved in this case are of a
personal nature and are not offences against the
society, we had enquired with learned counsel
appearing for the parties whether there is any
possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that
due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have
seen reason and have entered into a compromise."
This Court, thus, treated such offences including one
under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature and
not offences against the society."
12. Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at the
stage of appeal before this Court. On this aspect, the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh [AIR 2009 SC 675] is worth to be quoted here, as under:
"15. In our considered opinion, it would not be
appropriate to order compounding of an offence not
compoundable under the code ignoring and keeping aside
statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
deserves consideration that while imposing substantive
sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is
indeed a relevant circumstances which, the Court may keep
in mind."
13. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Unnikrishnan
alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 Supreme
Court 1745 is also worth referring in the context of this case as under:-
"10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State
of M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs.
State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs.
State of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 71 1, this
Court allowed the parties to compound the offence
even though the offence is a noncompoundable
depending on the facts and circumstances of each
case. In some cases this Court while imposing the fine
amount reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone."
11. What emerges from the above is that even if an
offence is not compoundable within the scope of
Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court
may, in view of the compromise arrive at between the
parties, reduce the sentence imposed while
maintaining the conviction."
14. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The
State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A.
No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya
Pradesh) decided on 18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram singh
vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019, Sohan Jangu &
others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRA No.550/2023 on
11.07.2023, has taken a similar view.
15. On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote the excerpt of the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan
Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) which is as
under:-
"28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart
of the criminal delivery system, but we do not find any
legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess
the trial Court in meeting out the just punishment to
the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty
of the charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the
decisions of this Court, it would appear that this Court
takes into account a combination of different factors
while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is
proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc."
29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of
the incident or even after conviction can indeed be one
of the factor in interfering the sentence awarded to
commensurate with the nature of offence being
committed to avoid bitterness in the families of the
accused and the victim and it will always be better to
restore their relation, if possible, but the compromise
cannot be taken to be a 6 solitary basis until the other
aggravating and mitigating factors also support and
are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence
which always has to be examined in the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand."
16. As the offence under Sections 307 (two counts) of IPC and Section
324 of IPC of the Indian Penal Code is non-compoundable under Section
320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to pass the
order of acquittal on the basis of compromise, but it is by now well settled
that such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence.
The appellants and the complainant are living in the same society; they are
residing happily for last so many years; they want to live with peace, and
therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment awarded
against the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone.
17. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court and
by this Court taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in
the year 2020 and further the appellant has already undergone jail sentence
of approximately six months and no fruitful purpose would be served in
keeping the appellant in jail further even after the compromise between the
parties, this Court is of the view that while maintaining the conviction under
sections 307 and 307/34 of IPC, the jail sentence under the offence is
reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing fine amount from Rs.
11,500/- to Rs.20,000/-.
18. In case, if the appellant fails to deposit the aforesaid enhanced fine
amount within 30 days from today, he shall suffer further 6 months S.I.
19. Out of the enhanced fine amount so deposited by the appellant,
Rs.20,000/- would be paid to the injured/complainants as compensation. The
amount of fine, if already deposited and compensation if already paid to the
injured, shall be adjusted.
20. The appellant is in jail. It is directed to jail authority to release him if
he is not wanted in any other case.
21. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property and
compensation stands confirmed.
22. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary
compliance.
Pending applications, if any shall be treated to be disposed off.
With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
VKV/-
VINAY
VERMA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL
BENCH JABALPUR,
KUMAR
2.5.4.20=13db8761eb70b132ff4027
3d1cd6cbbe7943345d9b89a3be51
b2002de183fc51,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
VERMA
serialNumber=24244EEED4BE5112
B2864A7944D29B2B81856B49A706
89CB14D4EBD1688FF149,
cn=VINAY KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2023.12.21 12:06:02 +05'30'
