Madhya Pradesh High Court
Magna And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55416
1 CRA-579-2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 4 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 579 of 2000
MAGNA AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri B.J. Chourasia, counsel for appellants.
Shri Atmaram Ben, Dy. GA for respondent/State.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. r/w Section
415 of B.N.S.S. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.02.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No.51/95 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under :
Appellants Conviction under Section Sentence
Appellant No.1 148 of IPC SI for 6 months
324/149 of IPC SI for 6 months
307/149 of IPC RI for 5 years
Appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 148 of IPC SI for 6 months
323/149 of IPC SI for 6 months
307/149 of IPC RI for 5 years
2. As per the prosecution story, 15.07.1994 on the point of ploughing the
agricultural land, hot talks were exchanged between appellants and complainant
party, which led to aforesaid incident in which both the parties caused injuries to
each other. Thereafter, on the basis of report of the complainant, offence was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55416
2 CRA-579-2000
registered against the appellants at Crime No.174/94, Police Station Nogaon
under Sections 147, 148 and 506-B, 324/149 of IPC. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. For the
aforesaid incident, on the report of the appellants, a cross case at Crime No.173/94
was registered in the Police Station Nogaon for the offence under Sections 147,
148, 307/149 of IPC.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellants
guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 323/149,
324/149, 307/149 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants have preferred appeal.
4. During the pendency of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants
as well as for the complainants/injured submitted joint applications, being I.A.
No. 22214/2025 and IA No. 22215/2025 seeking permission to compound the
offence on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. By
order dated 15.09.2025, the Registrar (J-II) of this Court was directed to record
the statements of the parties with respect to the compromise.
5. Pursuant thereto, the Registrar (J-II) recorded the statements of both
parties on 08.10.2025 and verified the correctness and genuineness of the
compromise. In the report it has also been mentioned that the complainant
voluntarily entered into the compromise with the appellants/accused with free will
and volition and without any threat, coercion, or inducement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55416
3 CRA-579-2000
5. Considering the compromise entered into between the parties without any
threat, inducement or coercion and since the offence under Sections 148 and
323/149 of the IPC is compoundable in nature, the permission to compound the
offence under Sections 148 and 323/149 of the IPC is granted. Hence, on the basis
of compromise, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148 and 323/149
of the IPC of the Indian Penal Code as recorded by the trial Court by the
impugned judgment dated 24.2.2000 passed in ST No. 51/95 is set aside and
appellants are acquitted of the offences. However, the offence punishable under
Sections 324/149 and 307/149 of the IPC is not compoundable.
6. Counsel for the appellants submits that so far as the sentence awarded
by the trial Court under Sections 324/149 and 307/149 of the IPC is concerned,
the appellant No.1 has already undergone jail sentence of about 3 months and 16
days and other appellants have already undergone jail sentence of about 50 days.
Compromise has already been entered into between the parties and a cross-case
had also been registered against the complainant party in which the appellants and
the complainant party compromised the matter, therefore, while maintaining the
conviction under Sections 324/149 and 307/149 of the IPC the jail sentence may
be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Though the appellants have not assailed the findings of conviction on
merits and have confined their submissions only to the question of sentence on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55416
4 CRA-579-2000
the basis of the compromise applications, 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 eye-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 from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this
Court. Accordingly, the findings of conviction of the trial Court against the
appellants as regards offence punishable under Sections 324/149 and 307/149 of
the IPC is hereby affirmed.
9. 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55416
5 CRA-579-2000
10. 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 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"
11. In the case of Murali vs. State (2021) 1 SCC 726, the Apex Court has
held that the fact of amicable settlement/compromise between the parties can be a
relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in quantum of sentence of convicts
even in serious non-compoundable offences.
12. In the present case, it is seen that the parties have compromised the
matter, which has been duly verified. It is true that the offence under Sections
324/149 and 307/149 of the IPC is not compoundable under the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, therefore, the applications for compromise
cannot be allowed. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55416
6 CRA-579-2000
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/injured 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.
13. Thus, though the offence under Sections 324/149 and 307/149 of the
IPC is non-compoundable, however, considering the nature of the accusation, the
compromise has voluntarily been entered into between the parties; the fact that
the complainants/injured have no objection to compounding the offence, for the
alleged offence a cross-case had also been registered against the complainant
party in which the appellants and the complainant party compromised the matter,
as also the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants, I am of
the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of
imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already
undergone by appellants.
14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellants under Sections 324/149 and 307/149 of the IPC as recorded by the
trial Court, is hereby affirmed. However, the substantive sentence of appellants is
modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants are
on bail. The bail bonds furnished by them shall stand discharged.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55416
7 CRA-579-2000
15. With the aforesaid modification, this criminal appeal stands disposed
of.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial Court record be
transmitted to the Court below for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules .
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
SM
