Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Singh And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45933
1 CRA-1907-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 17th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1907 of 2004
RAM SINGH AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Z.M. Shah with Shri Nitin Saraf - Advocates for the appellants.
Shri Atul Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Rajeev Kumar Badkur - Advocate for the complainant.
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
05.11.2004 delivered in Sessions Trial No.95/2002 ( State of MP Vs. Ram
Singh @ Others) by the learned II nd Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track
Court), Khurai, District-Sagar (MP), by which the appellants have been
convicted for commission of offence under Sections 326/34, 325/34, 323/34
of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI
for two years with fine of Rs.500/- & RI for one year with fine of Rs.200/-
respectively, with default stipulations. All the sentences are directed to run
concurrently.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45933
2 CRA-1907-2004
2. During the pendency of this appeal, I.A. No.12308/2024-
application under Section 320 of CrPC seeking leave to compound offence
as also compromise has 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 applications are duly supported by affidavit
of the complainant(s)/victim.
3 . Vide order dated 09.09.2024, 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 09.09.2024 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.
Appellants/accused and complainant(s) have been duly identified by their
respective counsel.
4 . The purpose of compromise is to maintain peace and harmony in
the relations. Section 320 of CrPC deals with compounding of offence.
5 . On the basis of the verification report dated 09.09.2024 furnished
by Registrar (J-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a
compromise on their free-will and volition. The appellants were convicted
and sentenced for the offence under Sections 323/34, 325/34 of IPC which
are compoundable in nature. Hence, appellants are acquitted from the
offence under Sections 323/34, 325/34 of IPC on the basis of compromise
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45933
3 CRA-1907-2004
arrived at between the parties. However, the appellants were also convicted
and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 of
IPC, which is non-compoundable offence.
6 . At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants recorded under
Section 326/34 of IPC by the Trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of jail
sentence. It is submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2001 i.e.
almost 25 years ago. It is further submitted that appellants were in custody
from 22.03.2001 to 11.05.2001 (49 days) during trial and after post
conviction, appellants have suffered jail sentence from the date of judgment
i.e. 05.11.2004 to 30.12.2004 i.e. the date of suspension of their jail sentence
(56 days). Thus, the appellants have already served out the incarceration
period of more than 100 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 appellants' jail sentence may
be reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone by them.
7. 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 appellants
guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. Though, the appellants have not assailed the findings of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45933
4 CRA-1907-2004
conviction under Section 326/34 of IPC on merits and have confined the
submissions only to the question 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 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 appellants under Section 326/34 of IPC are hereby
upheld.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45933
5 CRA-1907-2004
substantive sentence, the factum of compromise
between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstances
which, the Court may keep in mind."
11. 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."
12. 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:45933
6 CRA-1907-2004
13. 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 326/34 of IPC is 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.
14. Considering the nature of the accusation, the compromise has
voluntarily been entered into between the parties; the fact that the
complainant(s)/injured has no objection to compounding the offence, as also
the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants and also the
fact that appellants are facing the agony for the last 25 years as the incident
had taken place in the year 2001, I am of the considered opinion that the
ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellants under Section 326/34 of IPC is reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
15. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under Section 326/34 of
IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, is hereby affirmed. However, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45933
7 CRA-1907-2004
appellants' sentence as awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under
Section 326/34 of IPC is modified and reduced to the period already
undergone by them so far. The fine amount, if not already deposited, shall be
deposited within a period of two months from today. However, if the
appellants fail to pay the fine amount within the stipulated time, they would
suffer the punishment as awarded by the trial court in default of payment of
fine.
16. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
17. The order of the Trial Court with regard to disposal of the
property is hereby affirmed.
18. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid
compliance.
19. The present criminal appeal is disposed of to the extent
indicated herein above.
20. A copy of this order along with the record of the Trial Court be
sent to the Trial Court concerned for information and necessary action.
21. Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
