Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 1198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
Vishal Mishra, J.
Munna and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
Cr. A No. 103/2005
Decided On : 15-05-2020
For the Appellant : Prabal Solanki
For the Respondents: Sanjay Bahirani, Learned Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the effect of compromise between the parties, the nature and gravity of the crime, and the legal provisions under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reaching the decision to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellants.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Appeal - Sections 326, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the effect of compromise between the parties in light of the judgments in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Jagdish Chanana & Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana & Anr., and Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. The court also considered the legal provisions under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the nature and gravity of the crime in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The incident occurred almost two decades ago, and the accused-appellants have already undergone part of the jail sentence. The parties have entered into a compromise, duly verified by the Principal Registrar of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-appellants caused grievous injury to the victim, and the lower courts did not commit any error in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 of IPC. The court deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellants, subject to the payment of compensation to the injured.
Issues: The issues revolved around the effect of compromise between the parties, the nature and gravity of the crime, and the applicability of legal provisions under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the crime, the effect of compromise, and the legal provisions under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reaching its decision to reduce the sentence already undergone by the appellants.
Final Decision: The court directed the payment of an amount of 25,000/- as compensation to the injured within a period of 30 days from the date of the pronouncement of judgment, and in default of payment, the appellants were directed to undergo the remaining part of the jail sentence.
JUDGMENT :
Vishal Mishra, J.
1.This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. assails the judgment of the trial Court dated 18.01.2005 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track district Guna (M.P.), in Sessions Trial No. 235/98, whereby appellant-Munna has been convicted under Sections 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs. 500/- and remaining appellants have been convicted under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs. 500/- each, with default stipulation.
2. On earlier occasion, the criminal appeal was finally heard and decided by this Court vide judgment/order dated 06.11.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 103/2005 in following terms:-
"Looking to the nature of the offence and the period of sentence already undergone by the appellants and that this is first offence of the appellants, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them but fine amount imposed upon the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 1000/- each in addition to the amount already awarded by the trial Court. Appellants are directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount within a period of 30 days from the date of certified copy of this order, failing which, they have to undergone simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days."
3. Against the aforesaid order dated 06.11.2012 (Munna and Ors. Vs. State of M.P.), the State Government has filed SLP which was registered as SLP (Criminal) No. 5722/2013 in the name of State of M.P. Vs. Munna & Ors. and was subsequently registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1738/2014. The aforesaid criminal appeal was heard and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 14.08.2014 and considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
" .........
8. In the circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court so that the High Court can pass a reasoned order. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the High Court. The High Court is requested to pass a reasoned order. We requested the High Court to pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by it.
9. Since the accused were released from custody on sentence already undergone by them and the impugned order is set aside because it is unreasoned, we are not inclined to direct the respondents to surrender to jail.
10. The criminal appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms."
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter again came up for hearing before this Court for rehearing.
5. Today, the matter is being listed for final arguments.
6. With consent of the parties, matter is finally heard.
7. As per the prosecution story, the incident is said to have taken place on 14.06.1998 at about 05:30 pm to the effect that Harveer and sister of Ramveer informed to Kalyan Singh that injured-Kailash has been caught by Sunua Adiwashi, Munna Adiwashi, Rambabu and Munna. Thereafter, they went to the spot and saw that injured-Kailash was found unconscious in blood pool. It is further submitted that due to previous enmity, some altercation took place between the parties which resulted into the registration of the criminal case against the appellants. During the course of investigation, police authorities have got conducted the M.L.C of injured Kailash. Seizure memo, Naksha Panchayatnama and other documents were prepared by the prosecution and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court concerned.
8. The learned trial Court has framed the charges against the accused-appellants who have denied the charges and accordingly, they were put to trial. The prosecution in support of their case have examined fifteen p
