Gulab Das & Ors vs State Of M.P

Gulab Das & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

State of M.P. ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal calls in question the correctness of an

order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur whereby Criminal Appeal No.1509 of 2000 filed by

the appellants challenging their conviction and the

sentences awarded to them by the Additional Sessions

1

Judge, Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No.60/1995 has

been dismissed.

3. Appellant No.1, Gulab Das and his brother, Veeraji are

residents of village Sonasavri, District Hoshangabad in the

State of Madhya Pradesh. Both of them have built their

respective houses that are adjacent to each other. Three

days prior to the incident Gulab Das had put up a partition

fence between the two properties. On 30th September, 1994

at about 7.45 a.m. while Veeraji was shifting the partition

fence, alleging that it encroached on his property, an

exchange of hot words started between Gulab Das and his

two sons who are appellant Nos. 2 & 3 on one hand and

Veeraji, his wife and sons on the other. A free fight followed

in which both the parties received injuries resulting in

registration of cross cases by them in Police Station Itarsi,

District Hoshangabad. While the case registered against the

appellants was for offences punishable under Sections 307,

325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, that registered against

the opposite party was for the alleged commission of

offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 294 read with

2 Section 34 IPC. Separate charge sheets in relation to both

the cases were filed by the police before the Jurisdictional

Magistrate who committed the cases to the Court of

Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad. The case against the

appellants was made over to the First Additional Sessions

Judge, Hoshangabad, who acquitted the appellants for

some of the offences while convicting them for some others

with which they were charged. The operative portion of the

trial Court's order was in the following words:

"Therefore, accused persons Rajendra @ Rajjan and

Chetan is being held guilty for charges under section

307 IPC for causing deadly injuries with intention to

cause death of Veeraji and accused Gopaldas is being

held guilty under section 323 IPC for causing voluntary

simple injuries on Veeraji and accused persons Chetan

is held guilty under Section 323 IPC for causing simple

injuries on Phoolabai. Accused Chandrashekhar is

being acquitted from charges under sections 307,

307/34, 325/34, 323/34, 323/34 IPC. Accused

Gulabdas is being acquitted from charges under

sections 307, 307/34, 325/34, 323/34, 323/34 IPC and

accused Chetan is acquitted from charges under

sections 307/34, 325/34, 323/34 IPC."

4. Appellant No.1 Gulab Das, and Appellant No.2, Chetan

were resultantly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a

period of one month under Section 323 IPC. Appellant No.2

Chetan was further sentenced to undergo rigorous

3

imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of

Rs.500/- under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of

fine, he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for

a period of one month. Appellant No.3 was similarly

sentenced to undergo three years' imprisonment and a fine

of Rs.500/- under Section 307 IPC and in default of

payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous

imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run

concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the

appellants appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur which failed and has been dismissed by the order

impugned in this appeal. The appellants have in the present

appeal by special leave assailed the said order of dismissal.

6. Ms. June Chaudhari, learned senior counsel for the

appellants argued that during the pendency of the case in

this Court the parties have entered into an amicable

settlement/compromise and filed Criminal Misc. Petition

No.20418 of 2011 for permission to compound the offences

of which the appellants stand convicted. She drew our

4

attention to the compromise deed filed along with the

application and argued that since the parties had buried the

hatchet by amicably settling their disputes, this Court could

allow the matter to be compounded or in the alternative

take a lenient view in regard to the sentence awarded to

them. It was further submitted that so far as Appellant

No.1 is concerned he has already served the sentence

awarded to him under Section 323 IPC.

7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the

only question that falls for determination is whether the

prayer forf composition of the offence under Section 307

IPC could be allowed having regard to the compromise

arrived at between the parties. Our answer is in the

negative. This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled

that offences which are not compoundable under Section

320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be compounded

even if there is any settlement between the complainant on

the one hand and the accused on the other. Reference in

this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in

Ram Lal and Anr. v. State of J & K (1999) 2 SCC 213,

5

and Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008)

15 SCC 667. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting

the prayer for permission to compound the offence for

which Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 stand convicted.

8. Having said that we are of the view that the

settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties can

be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining

the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellants.

That is precisely the approach which this Court has adopted

in the cases referred to above. Even when the prayer for

composition has been declined this Court has in the two

cases mentioned above taken the fact of settlement

between the parties into consideration while dealing with

the question of sentence. Apart from the fact that a

settlement has taken place between the parties, there are

few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on

the question of sentence awarded to the appellants. The

incident in question had taken place in the year 1994. The

parties are related to each other. Both Appellant nos. 2 and

3 were at the time of the incident in their twenties. It is

6

also noteworthy that the incident had led to registration of

a cross case against the complainant party in which the trial

Court has already convicted Veeraji and others for offences

punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC and

sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of

two years and a fine of Rs.300/- and imprisonment of six

months under Section 323 IPC. We are told that the parties

having settled the matter, will approach the High Court for

an appropriate order in the appeal pending before it. More

so, the appellants have already served substantial part of

the sentence awarded to them.

9. In the totality of the circumstances we are of the view

that the settlement arrived at between the parties is a

sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to

the controversy and rehabilitate and normalise the

relationship between them.

10. In the result, while upholding the order of conviction

recorded by the Courts below, we reduce the sentence

awarded to the appellants to the sentence already

undergone by them. The appeal is to that extent allowed

7

and the impugned orders modified. The appellants shall be

set free forthwith if not otherwise required in any other

case.

........................................J.

(DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

.......................................J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi

November 16, 2011

8