[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uddeshya @ Shri Patwa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26388
1 CRA-12612-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12612 of 2024
UDDESHYA @ SHRI PATWA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Sahu - Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Seema Jaiswal - Panel Lawyer for respondent.
Shri Divyanshu Tiwari - Advocate for the objector.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 415(2) of
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned
Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara (MP) in Sessions Trial No.56
of 2023. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court found the appellant
guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 329 and 307 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 03 years and 07 years
respectively and fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively with default
stipulations.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on on 14" May 2023, when
informant/injured Rahul was admitted into Government Hospital for
treatment where he narrated his ordeal as he along with his friends Saurabh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26388
2 CRA-12612-2024
Soni and Manish Soni went to Mansaroveer Bus Stand for having a walk
where present appellant who resides in sonpur bilti came over there, where
he demanded amount to the tune of Rs 500/- for purpose of consuming
liquor, when injured refused to give him amount, appellant started using
abusive words and assaulted injured by means of cutter on abdomen and left
arm. Thereafter, he was taken to Government Hospital Chhindwara where
his medical examination was conducted and later on referred to Medical
College and Hospital, Nagpur (M.H.) and on 19/5/2023, injured was
discharged from hospital.
3. The police recorded Dehati Nalisi (Exhibit P/4) which was later on
reduced into an F.LR, bearing crime no. 283/2023 for commission of offence
under sections 294, 327, 324, 506, 326 & 329 of L.P.C. After completion of
the requisite formalities, the appellant was taken into custody and upon
conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the
competent Court. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions
for trial. Accused/appellant has refuted the charge and claimed to be tried.
4 . In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many
as 08 witnesses, namely, Sourabh Soni (PW-1), Rahul Soni (PW-2), Manish
Soni (PW-3), Amit Yadav (PW-4), Dr. Almuaz (PW-5), Mayank (PW-6),
Ravindra Pawar (PW-7) and Rajendra Singh and placed Ex.P/1 to P/14 the
documents on record.
5. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating
the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty
for commission of offences punishable under Section 329 and 307 of the IPC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26388
3 CRA-12612-2024
and sentenced him as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved with the
impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before
this Court.
5. Pursuant to order dated 25.2.2026 passed by this Court, Registrar (J-II)
of this Court recorded the statements of complainant/injured on 25.2.2026
itself and verified the correctness and genuineness of the compromise. As per
the report, 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 the dispute and the compromise is
voluntarily.
6. On the basis of the verification report dated 25.02.2026 furnished by
Registrar (Judicial-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a
compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the appellant was
convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 329 and
307 of the IPC, which are not compoundable.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of present
appellant that he is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 15.5.2023 till
today. Therefore, he has suffered incarceration of almost 02 years and 10
months. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he
does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under
Sections 329 and 307 of the IPC but has prayed for reduction of jail
sentence. It is submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2023 i.e.
almost 03 years ago. It is further submitted that compromise has already
been entered between the parties and parties have amicably settled their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26388
4 CRA-12612-2024
dispute. He remained cooperative during the trial and before this Court.
Therefore, it is prayed that appellant's jail sentence may be reduced/modified
to the extent of period already undergone by him .
8. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment but he
has no objection on deciding the appeal on the point of sentence. Learned
counsel appearing for the objector fairly submits that parties have amicably
settled their dispute and compromise has entered into between the parties.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Though, the appellant has not assailed the findings of conviction 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 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 the aforesaid
provisions of law are hereby upheld.
11. Turning to the point of compromise, it is also significant to note that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26388
5 CRA-12612-2024
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."
12. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. 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."
13. 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.
14. In the present case, it is seen that the parties have entered into
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26388
6 CRA-12612-2024
compromise and have amicably settled their dispute, which has been duly
verified. It is true that the offence under Sections 329 and 307 of the 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.
15. Thus, the offence under Sections 329 and 307 of IPC are non-
compoundable, as a result of which compromise application stands rejected,
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 and also the fact that
appellant is facing the agony for the last 03 years as the incident had taken
place in the year 2023, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice
would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine
amount.
16. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 329 and
307 of the IPC as recorded by the trial Court, is hereby affirmed. However,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26388
7 CRA-12612-2024
the appellant's sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court for the alleged
offences is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him so
far. The fine amount of Rs.500/- under Section 329 of IPC is enhanced to
Rs.4000/- and fine amount of Rs.1000/- under Section 307 of IPC is
enhanced to Rs.7000/-. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited by
him within a period of sixty days from the date of his release. The fine
amount, if any already deposited by the appellant be adjusted against the
aforesaid amount of fine. The entire amount of fine so deposited shall be
paid to the injured person as compensation under Section 395 of the BNSS,
2023.
17. The appellant is in jail. He be released in this case forthwith.
However, it is clarified that if the enhanced fine amount is not deposited
within a period of 60 days from the date of release of the appellant/accused
from the jail, failing which he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail
sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court with default
stipulation. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed.
18. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
19. Let record of the Trial Court along with judgment of this order be sent
to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
