Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shera @ Kadir vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51265
1 CRA-1787-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1787 of 2015
SHERA @ KADIR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Atul Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
None for the objector.
ORDER
With consent, arguments are heard finally.
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC, 1973 has been
preferred assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
06.07.2015 delivered in Special Sessions Trial No.47/2013 ( State of MP Vs.
Shera @ Kadir) by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Mandla (MP) by which the appellant was convicted for
offence under section 354 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years &
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and RI for one year & to pay fine of Rs.500/-
respectively, with default stipulations.
2 . Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged,
FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed before the competent Court. Charges were framed against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51265
2 CRA-1787-2015
appellant(s)/accused. Accused has refuted the charge and claimed to be tried.
Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After recording the statements of
prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence led by the parties;
learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty for commission of
aforementioned offence and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned
preceding paragraph No.1. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the
appellants have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, I.A. No.1821/2023 and I.A.
No.1823/2023-applications under Section 320 of CrPC seeking leave to
compound offence and also for compromise have been filed stating that
dispute between the parties have been resolved and they have entered into
compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further. The application is
supported by affidavit of the complainant/victim.
4. Vide order dated 11.09.2025, matter was referred to the Registrar
(Judicial-II) of this Court for verification of compromise. Registrar (Judicial-
II) in compliance of this Court's order has verified the aforesaid compromise
and has submitted the report dated 07.10.2025 wherein it is mentioned that
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 their dispute and the compromise is voluntarily. Appellant/accused
and complainant/victim have been duly identified by their respective counsel.
5 . The purpose of compromise is to maintain peace and harmony in
the relations. Section 320 of CrPC deals with compounding of offence.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51265
3 CRA-1787-2015
6. On the basis of the verification report dated 07.10.2025 furnished
by Registrar (J-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a
compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the appellant was
convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which are non-compoundable offence.
7 . At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he
does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under
Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act by the Trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is
submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2013 i.e. almost 12
years ago. It is further submitted that appellant has served out the
incarceration period of seven days so far. It is further submitted that
compromise has already been entered between the parties and parties have
amicably settled their dispute. Therefore, it is prayed that appellant's jail
sentence may be reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone
by him.
8. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded
by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence
produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant
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 appellant has not assailed the findings of conviction
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51265
4 CRA-1787-2015
under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act on merits and has confined the submissions only to the
quantum 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 appellant. 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 appellant under
Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 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 Vs. 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51265
5 CRA-1787-2015
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
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."
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 parties can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in
quantum of sentence of convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51265
6 CRA-1787-2015
15. 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 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)
(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are 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.
16. Considering the nature of the accusation, the compromise has
voluntarily been entered into between the parties; the fact that the
complainant(s)/victim has no objection to compounding the offence, as also
the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant and also the
fact that appellant is facing the agony for the last 12 years as the incident had
taken place in the year 2013, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of
justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellant under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:51265
7 CRA-1787-2015
17. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , as recorded by
the trial Court, is hereby affirmed. However, the appellant's sentence as
awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is modified and
reduced to the period already undergone by him so far. The fine amount as
imposed by the Trial Court, if not already deposited, shall be deposited
within a period of two months from today. However, if the appellant fail to
pay the fine amount within the stipulated time, he would suffer the
punishment as awarded by the trial court in default of payment of fine.
18. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
19. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid
compliance.
20. This appeal is disposed of to the extent indicated herein above.
21. Let Trial Court record, if available, along with copy of this order
be sent to the Trial Court concerned for information and necessary action.
22. Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
