The compromise between the parties can be considered for the reduction of sentence, even in non-compoundable cases, based on the principles established in previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

HIRDESH, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No. 17/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and Section 307 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years (on each count) with fine of Rs. 4,000/- with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution story, on 19.11.2020, appellant is alleged to have committed marpeet with complainant Tej Singh Thakur and assaulted him with a knife, due to which complainant party sustained various injuries. Complainant filed FIR at the concerned police station. On the basis of which the police registered the offence against appellant. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Magistrate Court and thereafter, matter was committed before the Sessions Court.

3. Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded for innocence. Thereafter, the trial Court took evidence of the prosecution and defence and after hearing arguments of both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences as stated hereinabove vide impugned judgment.

4. The appellant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment filed this instant appeal on various grounds.

5. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for compounding of the offence. The said application was sent for verification before the Registrar (Judicial). In compliance of said order, appellant and complainant appeared before the Registrar (Judicial). The compromise was verified and a report has been submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) before this Court that appellant/accused and the complainant have entered into compromise with mutual consent. Now there is no dispute remaining between the appellant/accused and the complainants. But as per aforesaid report, offence under Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as sentence is concerned, the appellant has already undergone jail sentence from 20.11.2020 to 16.02.2021 and further from 11.09.2023 he is in jail till date.

7. Compromise has been already done between the parties, therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine on the basis of compromise.

8. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer, however, the learned counsel for complainant has no objection and fairly admitted that they have entered into compromise in the case with the appellant.

9. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits and of conviction and confined their arguments as regards sentencing the appellant on the basis of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through the order of the trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the eye-witnesses including injured persons, but also well supported by medical testimony and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In view of evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of trial Court regarding conviction appears to be sound with reasonings, therefore, it does not warrant any inference. Accordingly, the finding with regard to conviction under aforesaid sections is hereby confirmed.

10. So far as the offence under Section 323 and 325 of IPC are concerned, it is compoundable with the leave of this Court. Since, there is no public interest involved in this case, so leave for compromise is granted and in the effect, the appellant is