Gabbar Singh & Ors. vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 3607 MP

                                                           1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 1 st OF MARCH, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 285 of 2002

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    GABBAR SINGH S/O MAHENDRA SINGH AGED 40
                               YEARS R/O VILLAGE BANKEPURA AT PRESENT
                               GOHAD DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    VIJAY SHARMA S/O JARDAN SINGH, AGED
                               ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKEPURA AT
                               PRESENT GOHAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    KARTAR SINGH S/O MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED
                               ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BANKEPURA AT
                               PRESENT GOHAD DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANTS
                         (SHRI KESHAV PATHAK, ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                         STATION GOHAD DISTRICT BHIND

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                         (SHRI C.P. SINGH, PANEL LAWYER)

                               This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

Instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been preferred by appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8th June 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad District Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 1998, by which the appellants have been convicted

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 3/1/2023 6:09:16 PM

under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

I t is submitted by Shri Pathak that during pendency of this appeal, a compromise took place between injured- complainants Bharat Singh Gurjar and Nathu Singh and present appellants and now they are on friendly terms and they inhabit the same society. All of them were present before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of factum of compromise. As per the report of the Principal Registrar of this Court, dated 14.12.2026, both the parties have arrived at a compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.

Shri Pathak, 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 1998, during trial the appellant No.1 Gabbar was in custody for more than 11 months i.e. from 27.02.1998 to 18.02.1999, appellant No.2 Vijay Singh was in custody for more than 5 months and 14 days i.e. from 01.06.1998 to 22.11.1998 and from 23.03.2000 to 06.04.2000 and appellant No.3 Kartar was in custody for more than 8 months i.e. from 28.05.1998 to 18.02.1999, this Court has already suspended the remaining execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 Gabbar Singh vide order dated 14.02.2003, appellant No.2 Vijay Singh vide order dated 10.01.2003 and appellant No.3 Kartar Singh vide order dated 28.10.2002, fine amount has already been deposited by appellants, therefore, it is prayed that substantive sentence awarded to the appellants for aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the appellants 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- Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 3/1/2023 6:09:16 PM

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, reported in (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 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 appellant and submitted that there

is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to accused- appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the law laid down by the 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 the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 3/1/2023 6:09:16 PM

appellants- accused is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants' conviction for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC is not disturbed. The fine amount deposited by the appellants be paid to the injured complainants by way of compensation. The appellants are set free and their bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, are discharged.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ojha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 3/1/2023 6:09:16 PM