1. Assault with axe and sickle causing injuries — Conviction under Section 307 IPC appeal against sentence. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
Nandlal Sahu And Others - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7184 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Narendra Nikhare, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Rashi Dua, Panel Lawyer.
For the Appellants :Mr. Narendra Nikhare, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Rashi Dua, Panel Lawyer.
For non-compoundable offences under Section 307 of the IPC, while a compromise cannot wipe out the conviction, it can be considered a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence of imprisonment, especially in the presence of a cross-case and absence of criminal antecedents.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307 and 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 320 - Non-compoundable offence - Reduction of sentence - Where an offence is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a compromise between the parties cannot be the basis to quash the conviction; however, such a compromise can be taken into account for the reduction of the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction. (Paras 7, 13, 16)
(B) Sentencing - Mitigating factors - Compromise entered into between the parties at the appellate stage, existence of a cross-case, absence of criminal antecedents, and the need to maintain social harmony in a shared community can be considered as grounds for reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. (Paras 8, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 307 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assaulting a person with an axe and sickle following a dispute over agricultural crop damage caused by a tractor. The trial court sentenced the appellants to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the parties entered into a compromise. It was further noted that the complainant and his son had been convicted in a cross-case under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the conviction recorded by the trial court was sound and supported by ocular, medical, and documentary evidence. While the offence is non-compoundable, the court found that the compromise and the circumstances of the case warranted leniency in sentencing to avoid further bitterness between the parties residing in the same society.
Issues: Whether a compromise in a non-compoundable offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code can be utilized to reduce the sentence of imprisonment even if the conviction is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Although the law prohibits the compounding of offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the court may, based on the facts and circumstances—such as a mutual compromise and the existence of a cross-case—reduce the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction to serve the ends of justice and social harmony. (Paras 13, 16, 17)
Result: Conviction maintained; jail sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine enhanced to Rs.2,500/- each.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellants seek sentence reduction based on compromise with injured. Conviction not challenged. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Conviction maintained; jail sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Can a non-compoundable offence under Section 307 IPC be compounded at the appellate stage?
No. The court held that Section 320 CrPC does not allow compounding of a non-compoundable offence, but a compromise can be a mitigating factor for sentence reduction. (Para 7 , 11 , 12 , 16 )
5. Can a compromise between parties be considered for reducing the sentence in a non-compoundable offence?
Yes. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that a genuine compromise, though not allowing compounding, is a relevant circumstance for reducing the sentence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. What factors are considered when reducing the sentence in a non-compoundable offence based on compromise?
The court considers the voluntariness of the compromise, the relationship between parties, desire for peace, lack of criminal antecedents, and whether further incarceration would serve any purpose. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. What is the effect of a compromise filed after conviction in a criminal appeal?
The judgment affirmed conviction but reduced the sentence, holding that a compromise is a relevant mitigating factor at the appellate stage to avoid bitterness and restore relations. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J.
This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.06.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, District Seoni in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2018 whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation and the the appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 307/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on 28.12.2027 at about 11:00 AM when complainant Rama Sahu along with his son namely Dilip Sahu was watering his agricultural field, the appellant No.2 passed through his field on a tractor, as a result of which the standing crops were allegedly damaged. When the complainant objected and attempted to stop them, the appellants, who were armed with axe and sickle used abusive language, approached the complainant and threatened him by saying that they would kill him. Thereafter, they allegedly assaulted him causing injuries on his head, right shoulder, right hand and nose. On the basis of the said incident, an FIR was lodged by complainant Rama Sahu at Police Station Lakhanwada, District Seoni (M.P.). Pursuant thereto, the police registered an offence against the present appellants. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 307, 325/34 and 506 (Part-II) against appellant No.1 Nandlal and under Sections 307/34, 325 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC against appellant No.2 Satyaprakash @ Golu. The accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. In defence, they have examined Satyaprakash Sahu (DW-1), Dr. P. Surya (DW-2) and Dr. Nancy Joseph Sane (DW-3).
3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses namely Rama Sahu (PW-1), Prakash Sanodiya (PW-2), Ramkumar Sanodiya (PW-3), Sub Inspector Rajesh Sharma (PW-4), Sanjay Sahu (PW-5), Manbodh Yadav (PW-6), Inspector Devkaran Dehariya (PW- 7) and Dr. M.P. Shiwedi (PW-8) and placed Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19A and Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8.
4. The learned trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence vide impugned judgment has acquitted the appellants under Section 506 (Part-II) of the IPC, but convicted the appellant No.1 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and appellant No.2 under Section 307/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.
5. The appellants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment filed this instant appeal on various grounds.
6. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for compounding of the offence. Pursuance to order dated 27.10.2025 passed by this Court, Registrar (Judicial-II) of this Court recorded the statement of injured Rama Sahu on 30.10.2025 and verified the correctness and genuineness of the compromise. As per the report, parties have amicably settled their dispute and have arrived at compromise on their own free will and volition and without any threat, inducement or coercion to settle the dispute. Injured Rama Sahu has been duly identified by his counsel.
7. On the basis of the verification report dated 30.10.2025 furnished by Registrar (Judicial-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 307 and 307/34 of the IPC which is not compoundable, therefore, the compromise between the parties is not acceptable.
