Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lekhram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47135
1 CRA-1032-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 19th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1032 of 2008
LEKHRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri L.N. Sakle - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Nupur Dhamija - Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Ankur Kashyap - Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC, 1973 has been
preferred assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
01.05.2008 delivered in Special Case No.97/2006 (State of MP Vs.
Lekhram) by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Khandwa (MP) by which the appellant was convicted for offence under
section 354 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo RI for six months & to pay fine of
Rs.500/- and RI for six months & to pay fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with
default stipulations.
2 . During the pendency of this appeal, I.A. No.3966/2024 and I.A.
No.3967/2024-applications under Section 320 of CrPC seeking leave to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47135
2 CRA-1032-2008
compound offence and 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 application is
supported by affidavit of the complainant/victim.
3 . Vide order dated 15.02.2024, 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 06.05.2024 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.
Appellant/accused and complainant 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 06.05.2024 furnished
by Registrar (J-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a
compromise on their free-will and volition. The appellant was convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Section 354 of IPC which is compoundable
in nature. Hence, appellant is acquitted from the offence under Section 354
of IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. However,
the appellant was also convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable
under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47135
3 CRA-1032-2008
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is a 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 appellant recorded under
Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the Trial Court,
but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that the incident
had taken place in the year 2006 i.e. almost 19 years ago. It is further
submitted that appellant has served out the incarceration period of three
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 appellant's jail sentence may be reduced/modified
to the extent of period already undergone by him.
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 appellant has not assailed the findings of conviction
under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on merits and
has 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47135
4 CRA-1032-2008
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 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 appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47135
5 CRA-1032-2008
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.
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 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not compoundable under the provisions of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47135
6 CRA-1032-2008
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 19 years as the incident
had taken place in the year 2006, I am of the considered opinion that the
ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
15. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(1)(xi) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , as recorded by the trial Court, is
hereby affirmed. However, the appellant's sentence as awarded by the Trial
Court for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by
him so far. The fine amount, if not already deposited, shall be deposited
within a period of two months. However, if the appellant fail to pay the fine
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:47135
7 CRA-1032-2008
amount within the stipulated time, he would suffer the punishment as
awarded by the trial court in default of payment of fine.
16. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
17. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the disposal of the
property is affirmed.
18. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid
compliance.
19. This appeal is disposed of to the extent indicated herein above.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned for
information and necessary action.
21. Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
