Lala @ Fatehlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17177 MP

                                                                         1
                            IN     THE          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4181 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    LALA @ FATEHLAL S/O SUKHDIN BORASI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 41 YEARS, BARAH KHOLI, HEERA MIL KI
                                 CHAL, PS DEWAS GATE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    RAMESHCHANDRA S/O SUKHDIN BORASI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 47 YEARS, BARAH KHOLI, HEERA MIL KI
                                 CHAL, P.S. DEWAS GATE, UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                                                    .....APPELLANT
                           (BY MS. N. RAHMAN, ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THR.PS. DEWAS GATE UJJAIN (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI G.RAWAT, GA FOR STATE )

                                                              RESERVED ON : 11.10.2023
                                                              DELIVERED ON :16.10.2023

                                   .......................................................................................................
                                 This appeal coming on for judgment this day, heard with the consent of
                           parties and the court passed the following:
                                                                       JUDGMENT

T h e present appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.05.2018, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain i n Sessions Trial No.179/2017, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under sections 326 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/17/2023 10:52:07 AM

years R.I. (under Section 326 of IPC) and 06 months (under Section 323) (appellant Rameshchandra has been convicted under Section 323 (Two counts) of IPC with fine of Rs.3000/- and 1000/-1000/- with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 05.01.2017, the complainant lodged the FIR by submitting that the appellant Lala used to ask his wife that why she has been keeping one Rakesh, but his wife Pushpa said that there is no relation between her and Rakesh. Such statement of Lala has been told to her husband by her. On that aspect, the complainant asked to appellant Lala as to why he used to state such type of statement. Due to which on 06.01.2017, the appellant Lala has assaulted on the Right hand of Rakesh by sword, when the

complainant and his wife have tried to intervene, then appellant Rameshchandra has also arrived on the spot, both the appellants have assaulted the complainant

and his wife. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a complaint and on the

basis of which police registered the offence under Sections 324,294,506/34 of IPC against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 234, 294, 506/34 of IPC under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and after trial, the learned Trial Court has convicted appellant no.1 under Section 323 and 326 of IPC whereas appellant no.2 has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC only.

3. Both the parties have filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compounding the offences.

4 . The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of the Court vide order dated 27.09.2022. In compliance to the said order, the appellants marked their presence before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a report dated 12.10.2022 has been submitted in which it is mentioned that accused/appellants and the complainant have entered Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/17/2023 10:52:07 AM

into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remained between the accused/appellants and the complainant party. However, as per the verification report, the offence under Section 326 of IPC is non-compoundable.

5. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have already undergone jail sentence of approximately one month and the incident had taken place in the year 2017. As the parties have entered into compromise, the appellant may be discharged from the aforesaid offence on the basis of compromise.

6 . Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under sections 326 of IPC is non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C 7 . Nevertheless, the appellants have not impugned the merits of conviction and confined their arguments as to sentencing of the appellants on the basis of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine the sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through the order of the trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the eye- witnesses including the injured persons but also well supported by medical testimony and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In view of the whole evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of learned trial Court regarding conviction is appears to be on sound reasoning, it does not

warrant any interference. Accordingly, this finding with regard to conviction under Section 326 of IPC, is hereby affirmed. However, so far as the offence under Section 323 is concerned, in effect of compromise, the appellants are discharged from the aforesaid offence. So far as the appellant Rameshchandra is concerned, he is facing the conviction only under Section 323 (two counts) of IPC, hence, he is acquitted from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/17/2023 10:52:07 AM

charges completely based on compromise.

8 . Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part and effect of compromise placed by the complainant/injured and accused person regarding the conviction under Section 326 of IPC. In the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr, 2014 (6) SCC 466 relying on the various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.21 has observed as under:-

"21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR was lodged under sections 147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed:

"Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have seen reason and have entered into a compromise."

This Court, thus, treated such offences including one Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/17/2023 10:52:07 AM

under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature and not offences against the society."

9. Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at the stage of appeal before this Court. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1745 is worth referring in the context of this case as under:-

"10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State of M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 71 1, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence even though the offence is a non- compoundable depending on the facts and circumstances of each cas e. In some cases this Court while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to the period already undergone."

11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise arrive at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction."

10. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A. No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019, Sohan Jangu & others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRA No.550/2023 on Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/17/2023 10:52:07 AM

11.07.2023, has taken a similar view.

11. On this point, this Court is also also inclined to quote the excerpt of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) which is as under:-

"28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the criminal delivery system, but we do not find any legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess the trial Court in meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court, it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.

29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of the incident or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor in

interfering the sentence awarded to commensurate with the nature of offence being committed to avoid bitterness in the families of the accused and the victim and it will always be better to restore their relation, if possible, but the compromise cannot be taken to be a solitary basis until the other aggravating and mitigating factors also support and are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence which always has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand."

12. As the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it

Signature Not Verified is not possible to pass the order of acquittal on the basis of compromise but, it Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/17/2023 10:52:07 AM

is by now well settled that such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence. The appellants and the complainant are living in the same society, they are residing happily since last so many years, they want to live with peace, and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant Lala @ Fatehlal may be reduced to the period already undergone

13. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2017 and further the appellant Lala @ Fatehlal has already undergone jail sentence of approximately one month and no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the appellant in jail even after the compromise between the parties, this Court is of the view that while maintaining the conviction under sections 326 of IPC, the jail sentence under this offence is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine from Rs.3000/- to Rs.10000/-. The appellant/Lala @ Fatehlal is directed to deposit fine of Rs.10000/- within a month from today. Out of the fine amount so recovered/deposited, Rs.5000/- be paid to injured- Rakesh. The bail bond of the appellants shall be discharged after depositing the compensation amount. In case of default of payment of fine amount, the appellant shall undergo further one months S.I.

14. The fine amount if deposited by the appellants under Section 323 of IP C shall be returned to them. The fine amount if already deposited under Section 326 of IPC by appellant Lala shall be adjusted and the compensation amount if already paid to the injures shall also be adjusted.

15. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property stands confirmed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/17/2023 10:52:07 AM

16. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary compliance.

17.With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off. Pending application, if any stands closed.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE AMIT

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/17/2023 10:52:07 AM