Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaggannath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12692 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
JAGGANNATH S/O GOBRU SURYAVANSHI, AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE
NAPAKHEDA, TEHSIL MALHARGARH DISTRICT
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI ARJUN PATHAK, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION NARAYANGARH,
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI GAURAV RAWAT, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
(SHRI VIKRAM MALVIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
[COMP]).
T h i s criminal appeal was heard and the Court pronounced the
following:
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.9.2023, passed by learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, District Mandsaur (MP), in Sessions Trial
No.178/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 307 of IPC and Section 506-B and sentenced to
undergo 07 years R.I., 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.1000/- and
default stipulation.
2. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for
compounding the offences.
3 . The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar vide order dated 25.04.2024. In compliance to the said order, the
appellant and complainant also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The
compromise was verified and a report dated 29.04.2024 has been submitted in
which it is mentioned that accused/appellant and the complainant have entered
into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between
the accused/appellant and the complainant. But as per the aforesaid report, the
offence under Sections 307 of IPC is non-compoundable.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as sentence is concerned,
the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of more than ten months and
the incident had taken place in the year 2018. 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 by enhancing the fine
amount on the basis of compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state has opposed the prayer.
However, counsel for the objector has not objected and fairly admitted that they
have compromised the case with the appellant.
6. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits of conviction
and confined his arguments on sentencing of the appellant 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 appears to be on sound reasonings, it does not warrant
any interference. Accordingly, the finding with regard to conviction under
Sections 307 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.
7. So far as the offence under Section 506-II of IPC is concerned, it is
compoundable with the leave of this Court. Since there is no public interest
involved in this case, the leave for compromise is granted and in the effect of
that, the appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 506-II of IPC on
the basis of compromise.
8. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part of non-
compoundable offence under Section 307 of IPC and effect of compromise
placed by the complainant/injured and accused person. 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
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 aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR
2009 SC 675] is worth to be quoted here as under:
"15. 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
circumstances which, the Court may keep in mind."
10. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in AIR
2017 Supreme Court 1745 is also 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."
11. 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.
12. On this point, this Court is 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."
13. As the offence under Sections 307 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 appellant 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 to the period already undergone
14. 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 2018 and further the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of
approximately 10 Months 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 307 of IPC, the
jail sentence under these offences is reduced to the period already undergone by
maintaining the fine amount from Rs.10,000/-.
15. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property stands affirmed.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
