Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Chandra Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52490
1 CRA-1832-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1832 of 2006
RAM CHANDRA MISHRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Akansha Singh - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Priyank Shandilya - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
Ms. Krishna Singh - Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has
been filed by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 16.09.2006 passed in ST No.173/2005 by the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Rewa whereby learned Sessions Judge found the appellant No.1-
Ram Chandra Mishra guilty for commission of offence punishable under
Section 307 of IPC and directed him to suffer R.I. for 7 years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and appellant No.2-Shribhagwan Mishra guilty for commission of
offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and directed him to suffer R.I.
for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- 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
appellant(s)/accused. Accused has refuted the charge and claimed to be tried.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52490
2 CRA-1832-2006
Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
3. 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 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.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants expressly gave up his challenge to the
findings of the trial Court so far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned.
In other words, learned counsel for the appellants accepted the finding of
conviction passed against the appellants, however, he challenged the quantum of
punishment alone. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants
and the victim are members of the same family. The appellants are uncle of the
complainant. It is further submitted that in the instant case, parties have
compromised the matter which has been verified by Registrar J-II. The
verification report dated 07.10.2025 is brought on record. Appellants have
remained in custody for more than five months. Learned counsel for the
appellants further submit that having regard to all circumstances, which resulted
in conviction of the appellants and further keeping in view the fact that the
appellants are facing trial before the concerned Court since 2005 and this appeal
is also pending since 2006, jail sentence of appellants may be reduced suitably.
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52490
3 CRA-1832-2006
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."
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that though
Section 435 is non-compoundable but in view of judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State
of Kerala, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1745 in exceptional circumstances
compromise can be effected by Court's inherent powers.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that no grounds are
available for reducing the jail sentence awarded to the appellants, hence, he
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Since learned counsel for the appellants havenot pressed this appeal on
merits, the facts of the case need not be elaborated herein.
9. In the case of Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan (supra) it is held 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52490
4 CRA-1832-2006
Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise
arrive at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while
maintaining the conviction."
10. 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.
11. It is true that the offence under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC are not
compoundable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, therefore, the application for compromise cannot be allowed.
However, as held by the Hon'ble 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.
12. Thus, though the offence under Sections 307 and 307/34 of 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 complainant has no objection to compounding the offence, and 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 conviction of
the appellants under Sections 307 and 307/34 of IPC is maintained, but the
sentence of imprisonment awarded is reduced to the period
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52490
5 CRA-1832-2006
already undergone by them.
12. The appellants, being on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.
13. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.
14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for
information and necessary compliance.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
