The court may consider the compromise between the parties and reduce the sentence imposed on the accused, even for non-compoundable offences, in line with relevant legal provisions and previous court decisions.

G.B SHAH, J.

As Criminal Appeal as well as Criminal Revision Application arise out of the same judgment and order, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Both these Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Application arise out of judgment and order dated 28.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 8th Fast Track Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No. 198 of 2004 whereby original accused were convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to suffer further SI for three months for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC and RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, to suffer further SI for one month for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accused were given benefit of set off for the period undergone in jail. Criminal Appeal No. 918 of 2005 is filed by the original accused against their conviction while Criminal Revision Application No. 568 of 2005 is filed by the original complainant for enhancement of sentence imposed on original accused.

3. Short facts of the case of the prosecution are that a complaint was filed by the complainant-Vishnubhai Dahyabhai Modi before Kheralu Police Station being II.C.R No. 78 of 2002 against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 294(B), 506(2) and 34 of IPC and also under section 135 of B.P Act. In pursuance of the said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused, a charge sheet was filed against the accused Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3.1 To, prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined several witnesses and also relied on several documentary evidence. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C were recorded.

3.2 On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned judgment and order as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment was delivered giving rise to the present Criminal Appeal by the original accused and Criminal Revision Application by the original complainant.

4. Heard learned advocates, Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the original accused, Mr. Nitin M. Amin for the original complainant and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the State.

5. Before effective hearing, it is jointly submitted by the learned advocates appearing for the parties that the matter is settled and compromise has been arrived at between the parties and two separate affidavits duly signed by both the parties are produced before the Court, which are taken on record. It is, therefore, requested that considering the compromise arrived at between the parties, the sentence imposed on the accused may be reduced the period they have already undergone in jail.

6. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment and order as also the affidavits filed in the matters.

7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2009 S.C 675 from paragraphs 13 to 16 as under:

“13. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC is not a compoundable offence. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly states that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. At the same time, however, while dealing with such matters, this Court may take into account a relevant and important consideration about compromise between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence.

14. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P, JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1), this Court,