Shadab vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3853 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shadab vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                          -1-


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT I N D O R E
                      BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
                        DHARMADHIKARI
                                                 &
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
                        ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10794 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
   SHADAB S/O JAMIL QURESHI, AGED ABOUT 25
   YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O SCHEME NO. 8
1.
   KABRISTAN ROAD BAGHANA DISTT. NEEMUCH
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   MOHAMMED FIROZ S/O MOHAMMAD SALIM
   QURESHI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2.
   LABOR MADHOGANJ MOHALLA, NEEMUCH CITY,
   DIST. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                            .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NEEMUCH
KANT DISTT. NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                           .....RESPONDENT
(SHRI K. K. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT                                   ADVOCATE           FOR       THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI MOHAMMAD IKRAM ANSARI -                                     ADVOCATE           FOR       THE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice
Devnarayan Mishra passed the following:
                               -2-




                            JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed against the order dated 12.08.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, in Sessions Trial No.20/2019, whereby, the appellant no.1 Shadab has been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and appellant no.2 Mohammed Firoz has been convicted under sections 307/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 21.02.2019 at 8 :15 PM when the injured was at private bus stand, Police Station Neemuch Kant, District Neemuch the appellant Shadab with a common intention assaulted the Wajid Khan with a knife on his belly and thus attempted to commit the murder and had caused fatal injury to injured Wajid Khan. The appellants and the complainants filed an application for compromise as I.A.No.870/2024 and I.A.No.871/2024

3. The aforessaid applications were sent for verification before the Principal Registrar. In compliance to the said order, the appellant no.1/Shadab has marked his presence through VC from Central Jail, Bherugarh, District Ujjain and appellant no.2/Mohammad Firoz was produced before the Principal Registrar in Escort and Injured Wajid Khan also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a report dated 02.02.2024 has been submitted that accused/appellants and the complainant have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining

between the accused/appellants and the complainant.

4. Counsel for the appellants submits that so far as sentence is concerned, the appellant No.1 Shadab has undergone jail sentence of 4 years and 11 months and appellant no.2 Mohammed Firoz has undergone the jail sentence of more than 6 months and the incident had taken place in the year 2019. Compromise has already been done between the parties and therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state has opposed the prayer.

6. 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, we have gone through the order of the trial Court.

7. The statement of injured Wajid Khan (PW-3) is supported by Rafiq (PW-2), Salam (PW-5) and Saddam (PW-7). Furthermore, the injury and the case of prosecution is supported by Dr. Sandeep Sharma (PW-9) and Dr. M.L. Maida (PW-14).

8. In view of the whole evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of learned trial Court regarding conviction is on sound reasoning, it does not warrant any interference. Hence, this finding with regard to conviction under Section 307 & 307/34 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the parties have entered into the compromise. In support of his contention he has

also placed reliance on the various judgments passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Durga Prasad and another vs. The State of M.P. (Cr.A.No.3198 of 2019 on 12.01.2022), Punamchand & Another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.2277 of 2021 on 30.11.2022), Mohammad & Another vs. The State of M.P. (Cr.A.No.1715 of 2022 on 12.12.2022), Gajanand & Another vs. The State of M.P. (Cr.A.No.5003 of 2022 on 12.05.2023), Shripal and Others vs. The State of M.P. (Cr.A.No.9963 of 2022 on 08.02.2023), Madan Singh & Another vs. The State of M.P. (Cr.A.No.9768 of 2022 on 08.02.2023), Ashok & Another vs. The State of M.P. (Cr.A.No.8637 of 2023 on 25.08.2023), Asif vs. The State of M.P. (Cr.A.No.539 of 2013 on 11.09.2023), Murli and Others vs. The State of M.P. (Cr.A.No.1031 of 2023 on 17.07.2023) and Tabrej Sheikh vs. The State of M.P. & Another (M.Cr.C.No.16844 of 2023 on 02.09.2023). So, in the light of aforesaid judgments of this Court, the appellants be sentenced to imprisonment as the period already undergone by them.

We have perused the above judgments.

10. From the factual aspect also, the appellant has inflicted only one injury and as per the prosecution case the knife was inflicted by appellant no.1 Shadab and the trial Court has sentenced to the life imprisonment that is disproportionate to the offence and appellant no.1 Shadab is in custody since 23.02.2019 and thus he has undergone the jail sentence of 4 years & 11 months and appellant No.2 Mohammed Firoz has undergone the jail sentence of more than 6 months.

11. The offence involved in this case is of personal nature. The

offence is not affecting the whole society and the appellants and victim/injured have entered into the compromise.

12. On this point the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 18 SCC 777, has held as under :-

5. Section 307 IPC is a non-compoundable offence. No permission can be granted to record the compromise between the parties. 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 :

"13. 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. Ishwarla 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."

6. As noted earlier, in the present case the appellant-accused, Manjit Singh, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years. The appellant is said to have served seventeen months of imprisonment. Taking note of the compromise entered into between the parties and considering the relationship of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and also the sentence undergone by the appellant- accused, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant under Sections 307 and 324 IPC is reduced from five years/two years to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.

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 2019 and further appellant no.1 Shadab and appellant no.2 Mohammed Firoz have already suffered the substantial jail sentence of 4 years &11 months and 6 months respectively 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 307 & 307/34 of IPC, the jail sentence under this offence is reduced to the period already undergone by maintaining the fine amount which will be deposited within a period of one month from today, out of the total fine amount, Rs.5,000/- will be paid to the injured as per the direction of the trial Court by the appellants.

14. The appellants are in custody. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case in jail, The amount of fine if already deposited, shall be adjusted.

15. In case, if the appellants fail to deposit the aforesaid fine amount within stipulated period, they shall suffer 3-3 months S.I. each.

16. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding case property is affirmed.

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

Pending applications, if any shall be closed.

With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.

Certified copy, as per rules.

            (S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                     (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
                    JUDGE                                                  JUDGE
            vs




VARSHA

         DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P BENCH

         2.5.4.20=ad8aed076f51c5157d5d26e315
         8ff46c8a5c15bb38ce7fd3b366b4d5691b



SINGH
         1e71, postalCode=452001, st=INDORE,
         serialNumber=99392DA1124ECC0232F97
         05F701A216D4EA0E5486056576130BB7E
         0D805E18EB, cn=VARSHA SINGH
         Date: 2024.02.19 16:17:04 +05'30'