Court can reduce sentencing for non-compoundable offences when parties reach consensus, considering the personal nature of the offences and mutual resolution.

JUDGMENT :

PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 374 being crestfallen by the order dated 27.02.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 682/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 498 -A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as to ' IPC ') for 1 year & 6 months R.I. and 03 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- and default stipulations.

2. The Prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 07.05.2015 at night from 01:30 to 02:00, the husband/Pintu @ Harvanshsingh of Kavita strangulated her neck with intention to kill her. Due to which, her breathing was stopped. After too much struggle, she released herself from Pintu/husband and on shouting her, Manjeet Kaur, Manpreet Kaur, Jasveer kaur reached on the spot, who interfered and safe Kavita. They admitted her in the hospital. An FIR was lodged by the complainant bearing Crime No. 319/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 498-A of IPC at Police Station Pardeshipura, District Indore. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Session Judge. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant under and 498-A of . In turn, the accused/appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has adduced as many as 12 witnesses namely the Kavita, complainanat (PW-1), Manpreet (PW-2), Ramesh Kumar (PW-3), Jasbeer (PW-4), Manjeet Kaur (PW-5), Mahanand Sharma (PW-6), Mahendra Singh (PW-7), Ramkishan Chouhan (PW-8), Pinki Singh (PW-9), R.R. Gamad, ASI (PW-10), Dr. Vikas Mishra (PW-11) and R.C. Khadetiya (PW-12). On behalf of defence, no witness was furnished.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, the complainant and petitioner have jointly filed an I.A. No. 2842/2019 under Sections 320 (2) read with Section 488 of Cr.P.C. stating that the dispute between them has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further. In compliance of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court and has submitted a report on 29.07.2024 that both the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. The offence under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC are non-compoundable and Kavita is the injured person. Therefore, the aforesaid compromise is accepted and on virtue of this compromise, I.A. No. 2842/2019 stands allowed to the extent of discharging the appellant from the charges under Section 498A and 307 of I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as sentence is concerned, the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of approximately four months. The incident had taken place in the year 2015. It is further submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence of the appellant 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.

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

7. Looking to the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits of conviction and confined his arguments as to sentencing of the appellant on the basis of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine the sanctity of conviction. On th