Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lukhai @ Leeladhar Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52996
1 CRA-1048-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 17 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1048 of 2025
LUKHAI @ LEELADHAR JATAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Shivhare, counsel for appellant.
Shri Shri Deepak Sahu, counsel for complainant.
Shri Priyank Sandilya, PL for respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 has been
filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
15.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deori, Sagar in S.T.
No.38/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 457 and 394 of the IPC and sentenced to RI for 5
years with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/-
respectively with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of a report lodged,
Crime No.254/2008 was registered against unknwon persons at Police Station
Deori, District Sagar for commission of offence punishable under Sections
458 and 380 of IPC. After investigation, the appellant and co-accused persons
were arrested and charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.
3. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52996
2 CRA-1048-2025
appreciating the evidence led by parties, learned trial Court found the
appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 457
and 394 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. No. 18084/2025 and IA No.18085/2025 seeking permission to
compound the offence on the ground that the parties have amicably settled
their dispute. By order dated 16.09.2025, 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 the same day i.e. on 16.09.2025 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. However, the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 394
of the IPC is not compoundable.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the sentence awarded
by the trial Court under Sections 457 and 394 of the IPC is concerned, the
appellant has already undergone jail sentence of more than 19 months.
Compromise has already been entered into between the parties and therefore,
while maintaining the conviction under Sections 457 and 394 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52996
3 CRA-1048-2025
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 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 Sections 457 and 394 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52996
4 CRA-1048-2025
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."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52996
5 CRA-1048-2025
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 457 and 394 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. Thus, though the offence under Sections 457 and 394 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 complainant has no objection to compounding the offence, as also
the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant, 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 by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to
10,000/-.
14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52996
6 CRA-1048-2025
appellant under Sections 457 and 394 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. However, the
fine amount Rs.1000/-awarded in both the sections is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-
. The appellant shall deposit the enhanced fine amount within a period of two
months. However, if he fails to pay the enhanced fine amount within two
months, he will suffer the jail sentence as awarded by the trial court in
default of payment of fine. The bail bond furnished by the appellant shall
stand discharged.
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
