JUDGMENT :

PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2022, passed by Special Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 79/2017, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under sections 459 & 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5-5 years of R.I. (each) with fine of Rs. 2000/- for each offence respectively with default stipulations.

2. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for compounding the offences.

3. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of the Court. In compliance to the said order, the appellants were produced before the Principal Registrar in Escort and complainants also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a report dated 30.11.2023 has been submitted that accused/appellants and the complainants have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between the accused/appellants and the complainants.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as sentence is concerned, the appellants have already undergone jail sentence of one year approximately. The incident had taken place in the year 2017. It is further submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount may be reasonably enhanced which may be directed to be paid to the complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state has opposed the appeal.

6. Looking to the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise. Nevertheless, the appellants have not impugned the merits of conviction and confined their arguments as to sentencing of the appellants on the basis of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine the 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 statement of the witnesses but also well supported by documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In view of the whole evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of learned trial Court regarding conviction appears to be on sound reasoning, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this finding with regard to conviction under Sections 459 and 307 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.

7. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part and effect of compromise placed by the complainant/injured and accused person. In the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 relying on the various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-21 has observed as under:

“21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR was lodged under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 AIR SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation and the guiding factors are:

(1) to secure the needs of justice.

(2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed:

“Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any pos