[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hanni Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26119
1 CRA-1266-2024
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. 1266 of 2024
HANNI YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Raunak Yadav - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri P. Pandey - Panel Lawyer for respondent.
Shri Om Yadav - Advocate for the objector.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section
374 (2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 28.12.2023 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge,
Sihora District Jabalpur (M.P.) in S.T. No.498/2020 whereby all the
appellant has been convicted under Section 394 (on two counts) of IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years on each count and fine of
Rs.3000/- on each count with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 08.10.2020,
complainant/Raju Patel lodged a complaint in the concerned Police Station
alleging therein that on the same day complainant/Raju Patel and Rakesh Sen
were coming from Motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP-20NB-5135. On
the way, some unknown persons stopped them and looted Rs. 4000/-, PAN
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26119
2 CRA-1266-2024
Card, Aadhar Card and some documents and also inflicted injury to them.
Thereafter, on the report of complainant, a case has been registered against
the present appellant and other co-accused for the aforesaid offences. During
investigation, some amounts were seized from his possession but no looted
property was seized from his possession. The appellant was identified by
complainant and his companion. The police after lodging First Information
Report, arrested some accused persons and on the basis of memorandum of
statements, some looted property was seized from accused persons. On the
basis of aforesaid information, offences punishable u/s 394 of I.P.C. and
Sec.25 of Arms Act, 1959 have been registered against appellant and other
co-accused persons with P.S.Khitola, District Jabalpur (M.P.) vide Crime
No.248/2020.
3. After completion of investigation, challan has been filed before
competent court who committed matter to the court of earned IIIrd
Addl.Sessions Judge, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for trial. The learned IIIrd
Addl.Sessions Judge, District Jabalpur (M.P.) framed charges u/s 394 or in
the alternative u/s 394/34 of LP.C. The appellant abjured his guilt and
pleaded to be tried and further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as
many as 10 witnesses, namely, Raju @ Maru Patel (PW-1), Rakesh @
Maggu Sen (PW-2), Raja @ Pankaj Upadhyay (PW-3), Dr. Raghvendra
Tripathi (PW-4), Chhotu @ Dharmendra Dahiya (PW-5), Mangal Kol (PW-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26119
3 CRA-1266-2024
6), Gourav Singh Thakur (PW-7), Dr. Hema Bisen (PW-8), Rahul Meshram
(PW-9) and Ashok Kumar Maravi (P.W.10) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/27 the
documents on record.
6. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
The defence of accused is of false implication. He did not choose to examine
any witness in his defence.
7. The learned trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the
evidence while acquitting the other co-accused persons Abhishek @ Hani
Shrivas, Shantanu @ Vasu Upadhyay and Ritik Yadav but has convicted the
accused/appellant under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in
para 1 of this judgment. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by
appellant.
8. It is submitted that by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of appellant that in the present case compromise has been entered into
between the present appellant and complainant Raju @ Maru Patel and
injured Rakesh Sen @ Maggu Sen and compromise has been duly verified
by the concerned Registrar by recording the statements of Raju @ Maru
Patel and Rakesh Sen @ Maggu. It is reported by the concerned Registrar
that compromise has been entered into between complainant Raju @ Maru
Patel, injured Rakesh Sen @ Maggu Sen and present appellant on their free
will and volition without any threat and inducement and therefore,
compromise appears to be genuine.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26119
4 CRA-1266-2024
was 19 years of age at the time of commission of offence. It is also
submitted that the incident is of the year 2020 and since then he is facing the
ordeal of trial. He is the first offender having no criminal antecedents as
depicted from para 68 of the impugned judgment. He remained cooperative
during the trial and before this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that sentence of
the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone while
enhancing the fine amount suitably.
10. 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.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26119
5 CRA-1266-2024
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.
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26119
6 CRA-1266-2024
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 , 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.
16. 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 394 of the 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.
17. Thus, the offence under Section 394 of IPC is 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26119
7 CRA-1266-2024
already undergone by the appellant and also the fact that appellant is facing
the agony for the last 06 years as the incident had taken place in the year
2020 and he remained in jail for 26 months as on today. As per custody
report dated 25.8.2025, he remained in custody for a period of 01 year 07
months and 28 days. He was on bail during trial and he has not misused the
liberty granted during bail. In view of the aforesaid, 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.
18. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 394 of
IPC (on two counts) as recorded by the trial Court, is hereby affirmed.
However, 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.3000/- (on two counts) is enhanced to
Rs.5000/- (on each count). The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited
by him within a period of sixty days from today. 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
persons as compensation under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.
19. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26119
8 CRA-1266-2024
default stipulation. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed.
20. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
21. 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
