Madhya Pradesh High Court

Balwan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2025

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52388




                                                                1                         CRA-2020-2010
                                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. 2020 of 2010
                                                       BALWAN SINGH
                                                            Versus
                                                THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                                     Shri Vijay Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.

                                     Smt. Vinita Sharma - GA for respondent/State.

                                                                    ORDER

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2010 passed by the 2nd ASJ (Fast Tack Court), Ashta District Sehore in S.T. No.108/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of the IPC and sentenced to RI for 3 months and RI for 4 years with fine of

Rs.2000/- respectively and in default of fine further three months SI.

2. As per the prosecution story, the appellant had confined the complainant-Rekha Bai, who is his wife, in a house and by assaulting her caused grievous injuries on her nose as well as threatened to kill her. Thereafter, on the complain of complainant, offence was registered against the appellant at Police Station Siddiqueganj District Sehore

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52388

2 CRA-2020-2010 under Sections 342, 323, 326 and 506(B) IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred appeal.

4. During the pendency of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the complainant/injured submitted joint application, being I.A. Nos. 5049 and 5050 of 2018 seeking permission

to compound the offence on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. By order dated 25.08.2025, 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 09.10.2025 and verified the correctness and genuineness of the compromise. In the report it has also been mentioned that complainant/injured voluntarily entered into the compromise with the appellant/accused with free will and volition and without any threat, coercion, or inducement. She has also stated in her statement that appellant is her husband and after marriage she has born one child and they are living together.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52388

3 CRA-2020-2010

5. Considering the compromise entered into between the parties without any threat, inducement or coercion and since the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable in nature, the permission to compound the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is granted. Hence, on the basis of compromise, the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC of the Indian Penal Code as recorded by the trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 21.09.2010 passed in ST 108/2009 is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the offences. However, the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is not compoundable.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the sentence awarded by the trial Court under Section 326 of the IPC is concerned, the appellant has already undergone jail sentence more than four months. Compromise has already been entered into between the parties and complainant/injured is the wife of appellant and after marriage she has born one child therefore, while maintaining the conviction under Section 326 of the IPC the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Though the appellant has not assailed the findings of conviction on merits and has confined his submissions only to the

question of sentence on the basis of the compromise application, this Court is nonetheless under a legal obligation to scrutinize the correctness

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52388

4 CRA-2020-2010 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 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 trial Court against the appellant as regards offence punishable under Section 326 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,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52388

5 CRA-2020-2010 the Court may keep in mind."

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52388

6 CRA-2020-2010 offence under Section 326 of the IPC is 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.

13. Considering the fact that the complainant/injured is the wife of appellant and after marriage she has born one child and they are living together as also the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant which is more than four months 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 appellant.

14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of

the appellant under Section 326 of the IPC as recorded by the trial Court, is hereby affirmed. However, the substantive sentence of appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. The

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52388

7 CRA-2020-2010 appellant is on bail. The bail bond furnished by the appellant shall stand discharged.