In cases of non-compoundable offences, reconciliation between parties and acceptance of apology can lead to reconsideration of sentencing, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)

Appellant, respondent No.2, their respective counsel and learned HCGP are present. Appellant and respondent No.2 are duly identified by their respective counsel. Appellant and respondent No.2 file joint memo which reads as follows:

“1. It is submitted that due to the intervention of this Hon’ble Court, well wishers, family friends; both appellant and respondent No.2 being the biological brothers have decided to put an end to the long standing dispute between them.

2. The respondent No.2 regret to the incidents in the above case and tenders an unconditional apology to the appellant.

3. Both appellant and respondent No.2 in future will lead a peaceful life without interfering in their affairs with each other.”

2. Heard both parties on the joint memo. They admit contents of the joint memo and due execution of the same.

3. Challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in SC No.58/2020 passed by the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri the complainant/victim has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. Respondent No.2 was prosecuted in SC No.58/2020 for the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Madikeri Rural Police in Crime No.302/2018. Crime No.302/2018 was registered by respondent No.1/Police on the basis of the complaint filed by present appellant as per Ex.P1.

4. It was alleged that on 18.11.2018 at 7.00 p.m. at Biligeri School ground in Biligeri village respondent No.2 was quarrelling with his wife. It was further alleged that on her request the appellant intervened to pacify the quarrel. Being enraged by that respondent No.2 with an intention to commit murder of appellant assaulted him with sickle and caused injury on the cheek of the appellant.

5. The Trial Court framed the charge against respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and tried him for the said charge and ultimately by the impugned judgment and order acquitted him. Challenging that judgment and order the appellant/ PW.1/complainant has preferred the above appeal.

6. Admittedly, the appellant is the younger brother of respondent No.2. The unfortunate incident took place due to family dispute and in the fit of anger of respondent No.2. Now both the parties have decided to bury the past and live in harmony. Respondent No.2 has tendered his unconditional apology and the parties have undertaken that in future they will lead peaceful life without interfering in the affairs of each other. It is true that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable. Still the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in the judgment in Syed Azhar Syed Kalandar vs. State of Maharashtra and another, [(2022)14 SCC 527] relying on its earlier larger bench judgment inMurali vs. State [(2021)1 SCC 726] in para 10 of the judgment held as follows:

“10. In almost the same circumstances which have been noticed by us, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in Murali v. State, where the parties decided to forgive their past and live amicably, this Court has come to their rescue by interfering in the quantum of sentence which obviously is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC but has interfered since there is no minimum sentence prescribed. This Court in Murali, has taken note of the judgment of this Court in Ram Pujan v. State of U.P. , (1973) 2 SCC 456 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 870] which was further followed by this Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 667 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1153] and the later decisions as referred to in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment has taken note of the compromise between the parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences. The relevant paragraphs are as follows : (Murali case paras 11-12)

“11. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K (1999) 2 SCC 213 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 123] ; Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 3