Vinod Pandey vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 4640 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                      ON THE 25 th OF MARCH, 2023
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 773 of 2004

BETWEEN:-
VINOD PANDEY S/O MAKHANLAL PANDEY, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O PACCHIPADA LOHAMANDI,
DISRICT- GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                   .....APPELLANT
(NONE PRESENT FOR THE APPELLANT)

AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION-
GWALIOR, DISTRICT- GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PADAMSHRI AGRAWAL- PANEL LAWYER)

      This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Advocates are abstaining from the Court work.

Shri Krishna Pandey (Son of the appellant) is present in person. Instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been preferred by appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/10/2004 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, District- Gwalior (M.P.0 in Sessions Trial No. 118/2004, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

It is stated that during pendency of this appeal, a compromise took place

between the injured/complainant- Manoj Chauhan and present appellant 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 17/03/2023, both the parties have arrived at a compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.

Appellant 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 2004, during trial the appellant was in custody for one month, this Court has already suspended the remaining execution of jail sentence of appellant vide

order dated 10/01/2005, fine amount has already been deposited by appellant, therefore, it is prayed that substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Appellant 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, 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 and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to accused-appellant 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 appellant- accused is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction for offence under Section 307 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court f o r offence under Section 307 of IPC is not

disturbed. The fine amount deposited by the appellant be paid to the injured complainant by way of compensation. The appellant is set free and his bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, are discharged.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR

RAHUL SINGH JUDGE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab676d0c

PARIHAR de4dee473fe77953f5,

rahul pseudonym=68E0B84BAE73376CD071289B3D9FE728CE00D487, serialNumber=0275C4F803F94C47998BE5C534E21BDED910FD4A B9D159B55575E814D05B2EED, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2023.03.27 11:15:02 +05'30'