Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishore Kumar & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 8 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50755
1 CRA-861-1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 861 of 1998
KISHORE KUMAR & ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri R.S.Patel - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Pankaj Raj- PL for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
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 26.03.1998
passed by the Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S. T. No. 263/1996 whereby the
appellant Nos. 1 and 4 - Kishore and Mukundrao have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC and each of them have
been sentenced for 7-7 years rigorous imprisonment and 1-1 year rigorous
imprisonment respectively with default stipulations and appellant No.3- Rajkumar
Bheemte has also been convicted under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC and
sentenced to 5 years RI and 1 year RI respectively with default stipulations.
2. PUD has been received from Police Station Kirnapur District Balaghat
dated 25-09-2025 which reflects that appellant No. 2- Naresh Kumar has died on
24-10-2020. Death certificate is annexed with the PUD.
3. In view of above, the present appeal is rendered infructuous as abated
as regards appellant No.2- Naresh Kumar.
4. According to the prosecution, on 14.9.96 at about 9 p.m, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50755
2 CRA-861-1998
complainant Santosh (PW- 1) alongwith Tilek Chand Vahane( PW-4), Teacher,
was returning home from bus stand. On the way, the appellants are alleged to
have stopped them and committed marpeet with them. Appellant Rajkumar is
alleged to have beat Tilakchand Wahane with fist and blows and appellant
Kishore Kumar is alleged to have caused hurt to the complainant Santosh in his
chest, stomach and neck by means of a scissor. The appellants Mukundreo and
Naresh are alleged to have committed marpeet by means of kicks and fist blows
and caused hurt. The appellants are alleged to have committed this marpeet on
account of dispute which had taken place on account of sale of house of
complainant Santosh and Kishorilal and transactions in respect thereof.
5. Thereafter, on the basis of a report of the complainant, offence was
registered against the appellants at Crime No. 136/1996 Police Station Kirnapur
District Balaghat for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 307
and 334 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before
the competent Court.
6. 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 307 and 323 of the
IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
7. During the pendency of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants
as well as for the complainant submitted joint applications, being I.A. No.
195/2019 and IA No. 194/2019 seeking permission to compound the offence on
the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute. By order dated
11.5.2023, the Registrar (J-II) of this Court was directed to record the statements
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50755
3 CRA-861-1998
of the parties with respect to the compromise.
8. Pursuant thereto, the Registrar (J-II) recorded the statements of both
parties on 11.5.2023 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 appellant No. 4-
Mukundrao/accused with free will and volition and without any threat, coercion,
or inducement.
9. 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. Hence, on the basis of compromise, the
conviction of the appellants under Section 323 of the IPC as recorded by the trial
Court is set aside and appellants are acquitted. However, the offence punishable
under Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable.
10. Counsel for the appellants submits that so far as the sentence awarded
by the trial Court under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, the appellant Nos. 1, 3
and 4 have already undergone jail sentence of 276 days, 248 days and 252 days
respectively. Compromise has already been entered into between the parties and
therefore, while maintaining the conviction under Section 307 of IPC, jail
sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant Nos. 1,
3 and 4.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Though the appellants have not assailed the findings of conviction on
merits and have confined their submissions only to the question of sentence on
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50755
4 CRA-861-1998
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
appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 as regards offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC
is hereby affirmed.
13. 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."
14. 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50755
5 CRA-861-1998
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"
15. 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.
16. The offence under Section 307 IPC is non- 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 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.
17. Considering the nature of the accusation, the compromise has
voluntarily been entered into between the parties; the fact that the complainant has
no objection for compounding the offence, so also the period of incarceration
already undergone by the appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4, I am of the considered
opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of imprisonment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50755
6 CRA-861-1998
awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the
appellant Nos.1,3 and 4.
18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The conviction of the
appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Sections 307 of IPC as recorded by the trial
Court is hereby affirmed. However, the substantive sentence of appellant Nos.1,
3 and 4 is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. The
bail bonds furnished by them shall stand discharged.
19. With the aforesaid modification, this criminal appeal stands disposed
of.
20. 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
PG
