[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sahil @ Chhotu @ Beda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68892
1 CRA-5704-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 16th OF DECEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5704 of 2023
SAHIL @ CHHOTU @ BEDA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Sahu - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Himanshu Soni - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 17.04.2023 passed by the learned Fifth Additional
Sessions Judge, Chhindwara (MP) in Sessions Trial No.03 of 2023 (State of
MP Vs. Sahul @ Chhotu @ Beda and another). By the said judgment, the
learned trial Court found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable
under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) of the
Arms Act and sentenced them to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.500/- each and one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of
Rs.500/- each respectively with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.10.2022 complainant Salman
Khan informed the Police Station that at about 01:30 PM owing to previous
enmity with appellant No.1 Sahil @ Chhotu Beda an altercation took place
between them. After the intervention of family members, the complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68892
2 CRA-5704-2023
returned to his house, whereupon appellant No.1 abused him and left the
spot. Thereafter, at about 02:30 PM, the complainant went to the rooftop of
the shop belonging to Nikhil Sahu where his friends were present. At that
time, appellant No.1 along with appellant No.2, his father, Raseed Mansoori
arrived at the said place and again abused the complainant. It is alleged that
with an intention to cause his death, appellant No.2 caught hold of the
complainant whilst appellant No.1 inflicted a stab injury on the
complainant's abdomen. Asif, Ramaan, and other persons present at the spot
intervened and rescued the complainant.
3. The matter was reported to the Police. On the basis of the said report, an
FIR was registered. After completion of the requisite formalities, the
appellants were taken into custody and upon conclusion of the investigation,
a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The case was thereafter
committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Accused/appellants have refuted
the charge and claimed to be tried. Statements of the witnesses were
recorded.
4. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating
the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court found the appellants
guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 307/34 of the
IPC and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act and sentenced them as mentioned
hereinabove. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellants
have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
5. Pursuant to order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Court, Registrar (J-II)
of this Court recorded the statements of complainant/injured on 10.11.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68892
3 CRA-5704-2023
itself and verified the correctness and genuineness of the compromise. As per
the report, parties have amicably settled their dispute and have arrived at
compromise on their own free will & volition and without any threat,
inducement or coercion to settle the dispute and the compromise is
voluntarily.
6. On the basis of the verification report dated 10.11.2025 furnished by
Registrar (Judicial-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a
compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the appellants were
convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 307/34 of
the IPC and Section 25(1-B), which are not compoundable.
7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he
does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants recorded under
Section 307/34 of the IPC and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, but has
prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that the incident had
taken place in the year 2022 i.e. almost 03 years ago. It is further submitted
that during trial the appellant No.1 was in jail from 02.10.2022 to 17.04.2023
(197 days) and appellant No.2 was in jail since 02.10.2022 to 21.02.2023
(142 days) and after conviction they are in continuous custody since the date
of judgment i.e. 17.04.2023 and as per custody report the appellant No.1 has
served out total sentence of more than 4 years months and appellant No.2 has
served out total sentence of more than 3 years and 9 months, in this case so
far. It is further submitted that compromise has already been entered between
the parties and parties have amicably settled their dispute. Learned counsel
for the appellants submits that complainant/injured though corroborated the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68892
4 CRA-5704-2023
story in examination-in-chief, but in cross-examination has not supported the
prosecution story. Complainant has not been declared hostile by the
prosecution in cross-examination therefore, his version is binding on the
prosecution. Therefore, it is prayed that appellants' jail sentence may be
reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone by them as no
fruitful purpose would get served by sending them behind the bars again.
8. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence
produced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has rightly found the
appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Though, the appellants have not assailed the findings of conviction on
merits and have confined the submissions only to the question of sentence on
the basis of the compromise entered between the parties; this Court, is
nonetheless under a legal obligation to scrutinize the correctness and sanctity
of the conviction recorded by the trial Court. On this aspect, I have carefully
perused the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence adduced during trial.
The prosecution case is not only corroborated by the testimony of the
witnesses, but also stands duly supported by other materials placed on
record. The trial Court, while appreciating the entire evidence in its proper
perspective, has arrived at a well-reasoned finding of guilt against the
appellants. Upon independent reappraisal, I find that the conclusion so
recorded by the trial Court is based on cogent reasoning and does not suffer
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68892
5 CRA-5704-2023
from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the findings of conviction of the appellants under the aforesaid
provisions of law are hereby upheld.
11. Turning to the point of compromise, it is also significant to note that
the compromise has been filed at the stage of appeal before this Court. On
this aspect, it would be relevant to note the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2009 SC
675], wherein the Apex Court has observed 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."
12. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. 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 case. 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."
13. In the case of Murali vs. State; (2021) 1 SCC 726 , Hon'ble the Apex
Court has held that the fact of amicable settlement/compromise between the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68892
6 CRA-5704-2023
parties can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in quantum of
sentence of convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences.
14. In the present case, it is seen that the parties have entered into
compromise and have amicably settled their dispute, which has been duly
verified. It is true that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not
compoundable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; therefore, the compromise cannot be allowed. However, as held by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in aforementioned case laws, in exceptional
circumstances, considering the voluntary settlement between the parties, the
Court may give effect to such compromise at the stage of final disposal of
appeal and further that where parties have amicably resolved their disputes
and the complainant has unequivocally supported the compromise; the Court
may, in the interest of justice and to maintain social harmony, modify the
relief suitably by reducing the substantive sentence.
15. Thus, the offence under Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable, as a
result of which compromise application stands rejected, however,
considering the nature of the accusation, the compromise has voluntarily
been entered into between the parties; the fact that the complainant has no
objection to compounding the offence, as also the period of incarceration
already undergone by the appellants and also the fact that appellants are
facing the agony for the last 03 years as the incident had taken place in the
year 2022, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be
met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to
the period already undergone by them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68892
7 CRA-5704-2023
16. In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the
IPC and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act as recorded by the trial Court, is
hereby affirmed. However, the appellants' sentence as awarded by the
learned Trial Court for the alleged offences is modified and reduced to the
period already undergone by them so far. The fine amount, if not already
deposited, shall be deposited within a period of one month. However, if the
appellants fail to pay the fine amount within the stipulated time, they would
suffer the punishment as awarded by the Trial Court in default of payment of
fine.
17. The appellants are in jail. They be released in this case
forthwith. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as imposed by the
learned Trial Court for the offences under Section 307/34 of the IPC and
Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act if not already deposited, the same be
deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of release of
the appellants/accused from the jail, failing which they would surrender
themselves to serve the entire jail sentence as awarded by the learned
trial Court with default stipulation. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed.
18. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
19. Let record of the Trial Court along with judgment of this order be sent
to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68892
8 CRA-5704-2023
THK
