Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishaque vs The State Of M.P. on 11 May, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 11 th OF MAY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 108 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1. ISHAQUE S/O INAYAT KHAN, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR,P.S.ARON DISTT.
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAM NARAYAN S/O IMRAT LAL, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR,P.S.ARON DISTT.
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BALLU @ BALKISHAN S/O PRABHULAL
BRHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE RAMPUR,P.S.ARON DISTT. GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MISHRILAL S/O BHUJJI LAL BRHAMAN, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
RAMPUR,P.S.ARON DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. DAMODAR @ PAPPU S/O RAMANAYAN
BRHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O
BHARGAVA COLONY, DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. JAGMOHAN S/O PRABHULAL BRHAMAN, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
RAMPUR,P.S.ARON DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. YUVRAJ @ GINTU S/O RAMNARAYN BRHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/O BHARGAVA
COLONY, DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. JAGDISH S/O PRABHULAL BRAHAMAN, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O BHARGAVA COLONY,
DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD 9.
Signing time: 12-05-2023
DHANNU @ DHANRAM S/O MISHRILAL
10:48:20 AM BRAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O
2
VILLAGE RAMPUR,P.S.ARON DISTT. GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. ASHOK @ VAKIL S/O RAMNARAYAN BRHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O BHARGAVA
COLONY, DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. JUGLA @ [email protected] BRIJESH KUMAR S/O
RAM NARAYAN BRHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 22
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR,P.S.ARON DISTT.
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)ADESH)
12. MUNNA S/O GULSHER KHAN,MOHAMMEDAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O VILLAGE
RAMPUR,P.S.ARON DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH),
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SHOBHENDRA KUMAR TIWARI- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION ARON
DISTT. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI A.P.S.TOMAR- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE
BY SHRI B.S.GAUR- ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-.1.2005 passed by the 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, in S.T.No.26/1998 whereby appellants have
been convicted under Sections 148, 341/149, 307/149 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo six months RI with fine of Rs.200/-, one month's SI with fine of
Rs.100/- and six years RI with fine of Rs.500/- respectively.
Signature Not VerifiedIn brief case of the prosecution case is that appellants armed with Lathi,
Signed by: MADHU
Farsi, axe, Ballam and sword caused injuries to complainant Tribhuwan. On the
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 12-05-2023
10:48:20 AM
report, offence was registered. Appellants were arrested. After investigation,
charge-sheet was filed and after trial appellants have been convicted as
aforesaid.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during pendency
of this appeal, a compromise took place between injured- complainant
Tribhuwan and present appellants and they filed I.A.Nos. 1791/2013 and
1792/2013 for compromise and the factum of compromise has been verified by
the Principal Registrar of this Court on 19.3.2013. As per the report of the
Principal Registrar of this Court, 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 want
to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by learned trial Court but since
the incident has taken place on 14.9.1997 and all the appellants, except
appellants No.1-Ishaque, 4-Mishrilal and 11-Jugla @ Jugalkishore, who have
died during pendency of this appeal, have suffered incarceration of near about
five and a half months and this Court has already suspended the remaining
execution of jail sentence of 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 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
Signature Not Verified
of Murali vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in (2021)
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 12-05-2023
10:48:20 AM
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
o f 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 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
appellants- accused, except appellants No.1, 4 & 11 who have died during
pendency of this appeal, is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be and is partly allowed. While
maintaining the appellants' conviction except appellants No.1, 4 & 11 for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD offence under Sections 148, 341/149 and 307/149 of IPC, the sentence awarded
Signing time: 12-05-2023
10:48:20 AM
to them is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine
amount imposed by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences is not disturbed.
The fine amount deposited by the appellants be paid to the injured complainant
by way of compensation
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ms/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 12-05-2023
10:48:20 AM
