Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 1785
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Brijesh Kumar : R.C.Lahoti
Murugesan
Versus
Ganapathy Velar
Case No. : 3282 of 2000
Date of Decision : 11/13/00
The court may maintain a well-merited conviction under the Indian Penal Code but reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone if the parties have reached a compromise and resolved their differences.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 343, 355 and 365 - Conviction upheld - Substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone due to compromise between parties - Fine and imprisonment in default thereof maintained. (Paras 1 and 2)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 323, 343, 355, and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The findings recorded by the trial court were accepted by the High Court. Following the conviction, the parties reached a compromise and resolved their differences.
Findings of Court:
The conviction is well-merited based on the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court. However, in view of the compromise and restored cordial relations between the parties, the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine and default imprisonment are maintained.
Issues: Whether the court should interfere with the conviction under the Indian Penal Code and whether a subsequent compromise between parties justifies the reduction of the substantive sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a conviction is well-merited on the facts, but the parties have since compromised and resolved their differences, the court may maintain the conviction while reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.
Result: Appeal disposed of with modifications.
R.C.LAHOTI, J.
(1) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detailed judgement of the High Court. Keeping in view the finding recorded by the trial Court, which on appreciation have been accepted by the High Court, in our opinion conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 323/343/355 and 365, Indian Penal Code is well merited. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction.
(2) MR. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the parties have since compromised and have resolved all their differences and are now having cordial relations. This position is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the opposite side. We, therefore, while maintaining conviction of the appellants under Sections 323/ 343/355 and 365, Indian Penal Code, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by them, but maintain the sentence of fine and imprisonment in default of payment of fine. We, however, direct that out of the fine paid, Rs. 25,000.00 shall be paid to each of the two injured person.
(3) WITH the above modifications, the appeal is disposed of.
