Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 1122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, G.S. AHLUWALIA, JJ.
Ramkrishna alias Sanju Sharma & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 686 OF 2007
Decided On : 01-12-2017
For the Petitioners:Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri V.K. Agarwal, Counsel.
For the Respondents: Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Public Prosecutor.
The factum of compromise can be considered in determining the quantum of sentence even for non-compoundable offences.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Appeal - Sections 341, 307, 324 of I.P.C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute between family members, leading to a violent altercation resulting in convictions under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
Finding of the Court:
The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of I.P.C. and acquitted the appellants of other charges based on a compromise between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant could be acquitted based on a compromise at the appellate stage and whether the factum of compromise could be considered in determining the question of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that once a person is convicted, they cannot be acquitted on the basis of compromise. However, the factum of compromise can be considered in determining the quantum of sentence.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of certain charges and the jail sentence for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. was reduced to the period already undergone.
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and sentence dated 24-8-2007 passed by IVth A.S.J., Morena, District Morena in Sessions Trial No.44/1994 by which the appellant No. 1 Ramkrishna @ Sanju has been convicted under Sections 341, 307, and 324 of I.P.C. and the appellants No.2, 3 and 4 have been convicted under Sections 341, 323 of I.P.C. Appellant No.1, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of 1 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. The appellants No. 2 and 3 have been sentenced to the period already undergone by them and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and the appellant No. 4 has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- for offence under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C. respectively.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that Shriram Sharma, the father of the complainant Rajesh Sharma, appellant Siyaram and Prosecution witness Ramnath Sharma (P.W.9) are real brothers. One Ratiram is a cousin brother and was issueless, therefore, he had given his property to Ramlakhan and appellant Ramkrishna by way of “will” and “sale deed” and accordingly Ramlakhan and appellant Ramkrishna were in possession of the same. The parties were at loggerhead due to this property dispute. One civil suit as well as criminal cases had taken place between the parties.
3. According to the prosecution story, two days prior to 21- 6-1993, the complainant Rajesh had come to his village to look after his fields. His uncle, namely Ramnath Sharma and his son Shrikant Sharma had also come to the village and were staying in the house of Ramswaroop Goswami. On the date of incident, the appellant Siyaram and Ramnath had a talk in the house of Siyaram on the issue of partition. The talks took place in a cordial atmosphere. Thereafter, the complainant went to fetch water from a well. When he reached in front of the house of Siyaram, he was caught hold by the appellant Bhagwati and appellant Ramlakhan gave a lathi blow on his head. The appellants Siyaram and Ramkrishna @ Sanju also started assaulting him by lathis, as a result of which the complainant Rajesh Sharma fell down. On hearing the screams of the complainant, Ramswaroop Bharti (P.W.8), Ramnath Sharma (P.W.9) and Shrikant Sharma (P.W.10) reached on the spot. At that time, the appellant Ramkrishna @ Sanju went to the roof of his house and fired a gun shot, but the said fire did not hit the complainant Rajesh Sharma, but a pellet hit on the forehead of Ramjilal (P.W.5), who was sitting in front of the door of his house. The F.I.R. Ex. P. 11 was lodged. The police after concluding the investigation, filed the charge sheet.
4. The Trial Court framed charges for offence under Sections 341,307 of I.P.C. against the appellant no.1 and under Sections 341, 323 of I.P.C. against the remaining appellants.
5. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
6. The Trial Court after recording evidence and hearing both the parties, convicted appellant No. 1 Ramkrishna @ Sanju under Section 341,307, and 324 of I.P.C. and the appellants no.2, 3 and 4 under Section 341,323 of I.P.C.
7. The counsel for the appellants did not challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court.
8. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the parties have resolved their disputes and an application for permission to compromise was also filed before this Court which has been verified by the Principal Registrar, of this Court, therefore, the appellants may be acquitted or may be saddled with the jail sentence of period already undergone.
9. Consi
