Madhya Pradesh High Court
Revaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46740
1 CRA-1088-2003
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. 1088 of 2003
REVARAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Priyank Sandilya - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Vinay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
As per the PUD dated 26.07.2022 received from the Court of CJM,
Narmadapuram, appellant No.1 has died on 16.03.2022 and vide order
dated 09.02.2023, this criminal appeal stands already abated qua
appellant No.1-Rewaram.
With consent, arguments are heard finally.
Appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section
374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2003 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, District-Hoshangabad
(MP) in Sessions Trial No.462/2000 ( State of MP Vs. Rewaram @
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46740
2 CRA-1088-2003
Others) whereby appellants have been convicted for commission of
offence under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 of IPC. For commission of
offence under Section 148 of IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo
RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations and for
commission of offence under Section 307/149 of IPC, they have been
sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs.1000/- with
default stipulations. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2 . During the pendency of this appeal, I.A. No.10565/2025 & I.A.
No.10566/2025-applications under Section 320 of CrPC seeking leave to
compound offence as also for compromise have 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 injured Santosh.
3 . Vide order dated 06.05.2025, matter was referred to the Principal
Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for verification of compromise. Principal
Registrar (Judicial) in compliance of this Court's order has verified the
aforesaid compromise and has submitted the report dated 19.05.2025
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 injured(s) have been duly identified
by their respective counsel.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46740
3 CRA-1088-2003
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 19.05.2025 furnished
by Principal Registrar (Judicial), this Court is satisfied that the parties have
arrived at a compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the
appellants were also convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable
under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 of IPC, which are 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
Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 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 2000 i.e. almost 25 years ago. It is further submitted that appellants
were in custody from 05.05.2000 to 02.06.2000 (total 28 days) during trial.
They have served out the jail sentence from the date of judgment i.e.
30.06.2003 to 29.07.2003 i.e. the date of suspension of their jail sentence
(total 30 days). It is further submitted that due to non-appearance of the
appellants before the Trial Court, they were again arrested on 28.03.2025 and
thereafter, their jail sentence was again suspended by this Court vide order
dated 06.05.2025; thus, the appellants have further served out the sentence
from 28.03.2025 to 06.05.2025 (total 40 days). Thus; in total, appellants
have served out the incarceration for a period of more than three months so
far in this case. It is further submitted that compromise has already been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46740
4 CRA-1088-2003
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
conviction under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46740
5 CRA-1088-2003
of conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46740
6 CRA-1088-2003
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.
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 Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 of
IPC are 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46740
7 CRA-1088-2003
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 2000, I am of the considered opinion that the
ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellants under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 of IPC is reduced to the
period already undergone by them.
15. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147, 148
and 307/149 of IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, is hereby affirmed.
However, the appellants' sentence as awarded by the Trial Court for the
offence under Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46740
8 CRA-1088-2003
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
