Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7291 MP

                                                                       1
                                   IN     THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                                 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                                                         ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2023
                                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1393 of 2015

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.        RAMESH S/O BALDEV SAHU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL.
                                   BARKHEDA HASAN P.S. AHMADPUR DISTT. SEHORE
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.        RADHE SHYAM S/O RAMESH SAHU, AGED ABOUT 22
                                   YEAR S, VILLAGE BARKHEDA HASAN, P.S. AHMADPUR,
                                   DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.        MONU S/O RAMESH SAHU, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
                                   VILLAGE BARKHEDA HASAN, P.S. AHMADPUR, DISTT.
                                   SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.        RAMESH SEN @ RAMMU S/O MANGILAL SEN, AGED
                                   ABOUT 38 YEARS, VILLAGE BARKHEDA HASAN, P.S.
                                   AHMADPUR, DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....APPELLANTS
                         (BY SHRI S.K. JAISWAL - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. AHMADPUR SEHORE
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENT
                         (BY SHRI MANOJ SINGH - PANEL LAWYER AND SHRI D.K. SHAH - ADVOCATE FOR
                         THE COMPLAINANT)

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

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the

Signature Not Verified SAN judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Sehore, District Sehore in Sessions Trial No.87/2014, whereby the appellants have Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.05.11 17:51:44 IST

been convicted under Sections 329/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years each with fine of Rs.2000/- each, with default stipulation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed this appeal on merits and submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the parties have resolved their dispute and entered into a compromise. I.A. Nos.21239/2022 & 20240/2022 have been filed in this regard. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the appellants may be acquitted on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

3. This Court vide order dated 09.12.2022 directed the parties to appear personally before Registrar (Judicial-II) for verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. The compromise has been verified by Registrar (Judicial-II) vide his report dated

13.12.2022 and it has been observed that the complainant has expressed that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with appellants/accused persons with free will and volition and without any threat and inducement from the appellants/accused persons to settle their dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed compounding of offence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since, learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed this appeal on merits, therefore, the facts of this case need not to be narrated herein. The parties have compromised the matter, which has been verified by Registrar (Judicial) vide his report dated 13.12.2022. The offence under Section 329/34of IPC is not compoundable, therefore, it cannot be permitted to be compounded.

6. However, regarding offence punishable under Section 329/34 of the IPC against the appellants is concerned, as per the law laid down in the case of Mahesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SCC 111, the compounding can be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Signature Not Verified SAN

7. In a case of Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2020) 18 SCC Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA

777, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered relevant circumstances to dispose of the Date: 2023.05.11 17:51:44 IST

case when offence under Section 307 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence and held as under:

"5..... In Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. [Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 667 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1153] , the Supreme Court of India has held that in a non-compoundable offence the compromise entered into between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind for considering the quantum of sentence. In paras 13 and 14 of the judgment in Ishwar Singh [Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 667 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1153] this Court has held as under : (SCC p. 670) œ13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 561] , Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar [Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1032] and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1156] , this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan [Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp SCC 681 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 159] , such offence was ordered to be compounded.

14. 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 circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murali Vs. State (2021) 1 SCC 726 has held as under:

" 8 . There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C 1973 ("CrPC) does not encapsulate Sections 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences. Given the unequivocal language of Section 320(9) Cr.P.C which explicitly prohibits any compounding except as Signature Not Verified SAN permitted under the said provision, it would not be possible to compound the appellants offences. Notwithstanding thereto, it appears Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.05.11 17:51:44 IST to us that the fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence."

9. The offence under Section 329/34 IPC is not a compoundable offence.

However, considering the nature of accusation and period already undergone as well as law down in the case of Manjit Singh (supra), in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if sentence awarded against the appellants is reduced by a period which is already undergone by them. The conviction of the appellants under Section 329/34 is hereby affirmed. However, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the jail sentence of the appellants is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them with a further direction that the fine amount imposed on the appellants is enhanced by a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged subject to payment of the aforesaid enhanced amount of fine. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.21239/2022 & 20240/2022 are disposed of. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary action.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE ks

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2023.05.11 17:51:44 IST