The compromise between the parties can be considered for the reduction of the sentence, especially when the offence is of a personal nature and not affecting the society at large.

JUDGEMENT :

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.01.2019, passed by ASJ, Jawad, District Neemuch (M.P.), in S.T. No.73/20154, whereby each appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6-6 Months R.I. with fine of Rs.3000/- each with default stipulations.

2. As per the case of prosecution, on 13.05.2015 at about 11PM in the night, the appellants have kidnapped the complainant. Hence, the missing person report was lodged and thereafter, during the investigation, it is found that the appellants have kidnapped the complainant. Hence, offence was registered against the appellants.

3. During investigation, spot map was prepared, seizure memos were prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section , 365/34, 342, 323 and 506 of IPC.

4. The appellants abjured their guilt and they took a plea that they are innocent.

5. After analyzing the prosecution evidence and considering the rival submissions, the Trial Court has acquitted the appellants under Section 342, 323 and 506 of the Act and whereas convicted them only under Section 365/34 of IPC by sentencing for 6-6 months each.

6. Counsel for the appellants submits the appellants and the complainant has already compromised the case and the application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C was filed before the trial Court, but the same was not considered and the appellants were convicted. It is further submitted that there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 365 of IPC and prays that the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone because the appellant Prakash has suffered 10 days and Rajesh and Baluram

Signature Not Verified have suffered 7-7 days respectively out of six months and the fine amount may be enhanced or as the Court may deem fits in the interest of justice as the incident had taken place in the year 2015.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under sections 365 of IPC is non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C

8. 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 eye-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 is appears to be on sound reasoning, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this finding with regard to conviction under Section 365 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.

9. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part and effect of compromise placed by the complainant/injured and accused person regarding the conviction under Section 365 of IPC. In the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr, 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 no.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 Signature Not Verified 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 j