Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nilesh@ Mirchi Tanwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 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
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2785 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NILESH@ MIRCHI TANWAR S/O LATE PUNAMCHAND
TANWAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR 114, AGRAWAL COLONY NARMADA ROAD
RAU (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH P.S. RAU (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.K. GUPTA, GA FOR STATE)
.........................................................................................................................................
HEARD ON :29.05.2024
DELIVERED ON: 31.05.2024
This appeal was heard and the court passed 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 31.01.2024, passed by learned
18th Additional Sessions Judge, District Indore (MP), in Sessions Trial
No.309/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under
Section 25(1-B)(b) R/w section 04 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo
1 0 and 01 year years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- & Rs. 5000/- and default
stipulation.
2 . As per the prosecution story, on 06.02.2022 at about 07:30 in the
evening, the complainant Rizwan has lodged a Dehatil Nalishi at Choithram
Hospital Indore that he alongwith his friend Kaushal, Arbak Khan, Parvez Shah
were gone to Gurukul Ground where one Nilesh was standing and due to some
old enmity, he has started to assault on him with knife. He has assaulted on his
hand, head and other parts on the body repeatedly. After the assault, he has fled
from the spot. Based on the said Dehati Nalischi, the police has invested the
matter and registered the FIR under Section 307 of IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed and the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and under Section
25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act..
4. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for
compounding the offences.
5 . The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar vide order dated 15.05.2024. In compliance to the said order, the
appellant and complainant also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The
compromise was verified and a report dated 20.05.2024 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.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as sentence is concerned,
the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of more than one year and
11 months and the incident had taken place in the year 2022. 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.
7 . 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.
8. 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.
9. 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."
10. 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."
11. 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."
12. 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.
13. 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."
14. As the offence under Section 307 of IPC 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
15. 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 2022 and further the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of
more than one year and 11 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 Section 307
of IPC, the jail sentence under these offences is reduced to the period already
undergone by maintaining the fine of Rs.5,000/- which will be deposited by the
appellant within a period of two months from today, if not already deposited.
16. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 25(1-B)(b) of
the Arms Act and sentence of one year and five of Rs.5000/- is concerned,
since the appellant has already undergone one year and 11 months in
incarceration, the conviction and sentence alongwith the fine of appellant under
Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act is hereby affirmed.
17. The compensation amount, if already paid to the complainant shall be
adjusted.
18. The appellant is in jail. The bail bond of the appellant shall be
discharged after depositing the fine amount.
18. If the appellant fails to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer 02
months of simple imprisonment in default and thereafter completion of the
same, he shall be released from jail, if not required in any other case.
19. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property stands affirmed.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
21. Pending application, if any shall be closed.
22. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
