Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 October, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 18 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1411 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. DINESH S/O RUKHDUJI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST UCHAVAD
P.S.ANJAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMESH S/O RUKHDUJI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST UCHAVAD, P.S.
AJAD DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU.P.S.ANJAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJESH JOSHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL.
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 17.09.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani
in Sessions Trial No.122/2013, whereby, the appellants have been convicted
under sections 435 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3-3 months each with
fine of Rs.500/- and 500/- with default stipulations.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 29.04.2013, the complainant has
Signature Not Verified
lodged FIR against the appellants that the on the date of incident, at about
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 10/19/2023
4:40:32 PM
11AM, when he was working on the filed, the appellants have set ablaze the
agriculture produce of maize which was kept on the filed. Hence, the FIR under
Section 435/34 was registered against the appellants.
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 04.10.2023. In compliance to the said
order, the appellants marked their presence before the Principal Registrar. The
compromise was verified and a report dated 12.10.2023 has been submitted in
which it is mentioned that accused/appellants and the complainant have entered
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 435 of IPC is non-compoundable.
5. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants has submitted
that the appellants and the complainant has already compromised the case. It is
further submitted that there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section
435 of IPC and prays that the appellants may be acquitted on the basis of the
compromise or disposed off the appeal as the Court may deem fits in the
interest of justice as the as the incident had taken place in the year 2013.
6 . Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence
under sections 435 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 10/19/2023
4:40:32 PM
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 but also well supported by 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 435 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.
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 435 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 10/19/2023
4:40:32 PM
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
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."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 10/19/2023
4:40:32 PM
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 10/19/2023
4:40:32 PM
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 435 of the Indian Penal Code is not
compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it
is not possible to pass the order of acquittal on the basis of compromise but, it
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 appellants may be reduced for a period "till rising of the
Court" because the imprisonment of sentence under Section 435 of IPC is
mandatory in nature. Hence, in the interest of justice the appellants may awarded
sentence till the rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount of Rs.10000/-
in place of Rs.500/- payable by both the appellants within a period of two
months from today.
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 2013 and no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the appellants
in jail even after the compromise between the parties, this Court is of the view
that while maintaining the conviction under sections 435 of IPC, the jail sentence
under this offence is reduced to Till Rising Of the Court by enhancing the fine
from Rs.500/- to Rs.10000/-.
14. The appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced fine of
Rs.10000/- within two months from today. The bail bond of the appellants
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 10/19/2023
4:40:32 PM
shall be discharged after depositing enhanced fine amount. In case of default of
payment of fine amount, the appellants shall undergo actual jail sentence as
awarded by the learned trial Court.
15. The fine amount if already deposited by the appellants shall be
adjusted.
16. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property stands
confirmed.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance. The learned trial Court is also directed to ensure
the imprisonment for "till rising of the Court" on the same day when the
appellants shall deposit the enhanced fine amount before the trial court.
18.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: 10/19/2023
4:40:32 PM
