1994 1 MPWN 223 ; 1993 0 Supreme(MP) 370

D.K. Jain, J.
Ram Chandra v. State of M.P.
Cr. Revn. No. 385 of 1988 (J); Decided on 26.6.1993.

(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 440 -- offence under though not compoundable compounded -- fact may be considered in awarding sentence.

        (2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 320 -- non-compoundable case compounded -- fact may be considered in awarding sentence.

        ¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 440 & mica/k ds v/khu vijk/k ;|fi ‘keuh; ugh fQj Hkh ‘keu fd;k x;k & naMkns‘k nsus esa bl rF; ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA

        ¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 320 & v‘keuh; ekeyk ‘keu fd;k x;k & naMkns‘k nsus es bl rF; ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA

        On behalf of the applicants the conviction of the applicants under section 440 of the Indian Penal Code has not been challenged on merits and the only contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the applicants are poor cultivators and the fine of Rs. 2,000/- each levelled against them is too excessive and the same should be reduced looking to the fact that during the pendency of the appeal in the Sessions Court, Sehore, an application was filed by the complainant and all the accused/applicants disclosing that the parties have mutually compromised the case out of the Court. It was further submitted on behalf of the applicants that no injury had been caused to the complainant during the incident and so also a lenient view regarding the sentence should be taken and the fine amount be reduced.

        Held: The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 8.6.1988 has rightly held that the offence under section 440 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge has considered the fact that the parties had compromised the matter out of the Court and that the Accused persons were first offenders and had faced the trial for about three years, and also, that no injury had been caused to the complainant or any other person and keeping these circumstances in view he had taken a lenient view regarding the sentence and had passed the sentence as aforesaid sentencing the applicants till rising of the Court coupled with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in deafult of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 3 months each. The trial Court had awarded Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the complainant Ranjeet to be paid to from the fine amount which was to be recovered and the aforesaid compensation awarded by the trial Court was raised to Rs. 5,000/- by the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore. Looking to all the aforesaid circumstances which have also been considered by the learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment dated 8.6.1988, while maintaining the conviction under section 440 of the Indian Penal Code, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- each to a fine of Rs. 1,5000/each and in default of payment of fine each of the applicants to undergo R.I. for three months each. Out of fine amount recovered, Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the complainant Ranjeet as already awarded by the Sessions Judge, Schore. The applicants shall deposit the fine amount in the Court concerned within a period of one month from today. The revision petition thus partly allowed.

Act Referred :
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.320
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.440

Rajesh Maindretta for applicants; G.C. Jain for State.