Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyaveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
,MORENA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 21 st OF JULY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 503 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. SATYAVEER SINGH S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
MUNGAWALI, P.S.CIVIL LINE DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJVEER S/O RAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 30
YE A R S RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUNGAWALI,
P.S.CIVIL LINE DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH),
3. NARESH S/O RAMESHWAR DAYAL YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENTOF MUNGAWALI,
DISTRICT MORENA PRESENT RESIDENT OF
KESHAV COLONY, SITARAM WALI GALI,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JITENDRA S/O RAMESHWAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
MUNGAWALI, PS CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHAILENDA S/O PRAKASH @ RAMPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
MUNGAWALI, PS CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SANTOSH @MAHESH S/O OPRAKASH, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
MUNGAWALI, PS CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI M. K. CHAUDHARY- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 7/22/2023
6:55:48 PM
2
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI APS TOMAR- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT- STATE
AND SHRI ATUL GUPTA- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been preferred
by appellants against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25-03-2014
passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 351
of 2010 whereby appellants Satyaveer Singh, Naresh, Rajveer, Jitendra,
Shailendra, Santosh alias Mahesh have been convicted under Section 148 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and they have further been
convicted under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years RI
with fine of Rs.500/-, appellants Satyaveer Singh has been convicted under
Section 307 of IPC for causing injuries to injured Gultu alias Jaipal and under
Section 307/149 (two counts) of IPC for causing injuries to injured Kallu alias
Mahesh and Ramveer and sentenced to undergo seven years RI with fine of
Rs.1,000/-, appellant Naresh has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC (
two counts) for causing injuries to injured Kallu alias Mahesh and Ramveer and
under Section 307/149 of IPC (two counts) for causing injury to Gultu alias
Jaipal and sentenced to undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-,
appellants Jitendra, Rajveer, Shailendra and Sanotosh alias Mahesh have been
convicted under Section 307/149 of IPC (three counts) for causing injuries to
injured Gultu alias Jaipal, Kallu alias Mahesh and Ramveer and sentenced to
undergo seven years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations. All the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 7/22/2023
6:55:48 PM
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that during pendency of this
appeal, a compromise took place between the complainant party and the
accused party and now they are on friendly terms and they inhabit the same
society. Both of them were present before the Principal Registrar of this Court
for verification of factum of compromise by filing IA Nos. 9504 of 2022 and
9505/22 along with affidavits. As per the report of the Principal Registrar of this
Court, dated 12-05-2023 both the parties have arrived at a compromise
voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion. Learned counsel for
the appellants further submits that he does not challenge the finding of
conviction recorded by learned trial Court but since the occurrence has taken
place as back as in the year 2020, the appellants have been facing mental agony
for a period of more than 11 years, they are first offenders and they have no
criminal antecedents and fine amount has already been deposited by them,
therefore, it is prayed that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the
appellants for aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already
undergone by them. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment
dated 20-09-2011 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 315 of 1998[ Keshav and Others vs. State of MP], judgment
dated 01-12-2017 passed by Division bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 686 of 2007 [Ramkrishna alias Sanju Sharma and Others vs. State
of MP] and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of
Murali vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2021) 1 SCC 726,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 12 of its judgment has observed that
there is no question of settlement being as a result of any coercion or
inducement and considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 7/22/2023
6:55:48 PM
inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence. Further, in
the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of MP, reported in AIR 2009 SC 675 ,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that Section 307 of IPC is a non-
compoundable offence, the parties have arrived at a compromise and offence
cannot be compounded, however, compromise during pendency of the appeal
can be considered while awarding sentence considering the fact that the
accused was young and first offender, incident was over 15 years old and
accused had suffered part of sentence, in these circumstances, the sentence
reduced to the period already undergone. Similar view has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pujan and Others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2418.
O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that
there is neither any occasion to interfere with sentence awarded to accused
appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
Counsel for complainant has no objection to the submissions made by the
counsel for the appellants.
Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as this Court in the above cited judgments, in my opinion,
the ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to appellants is
reduced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the present
criminal appeal deserves to be and is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of appellants for the alleged offences, the jail sentence awarded to
them is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine
amount imposed by the trial Court for the alleged offences is not disturbed. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 7/22/2023
6:55:48 PM
appellants who are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stands
discharged.
A copy of this judgment be supplied to the trial Court for necessary
information along with record.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 7/22/2023
6:55:48 PM
