2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 12395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 22nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1806 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1.
GOVIND SINGH S/O GAJRAJ SINGH RAJPUT,
AGED
ABOUT
21
YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE BOHRAKHEDI P.S. NAI
ABADI
DISTRICT
MANDSAUR
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
PURAN SINGH S/O GAJRAJ SINGH RAJPUT, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
R/O VILLAGE BOHRAKHEDI, PS NAI ABADI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NILESH DAVE,ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATATION
NAI ABADI DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
DILIP
AHIRWAR
S/O
KANHAIYALAL,
AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER R/O-
VILLAGE
BOHRAKHEDI,
P.S-
NAI
ABADI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJESH JOSHI, GA FOR STATE)
Reserved on :13.12.2023
Delivered on :22.12.2023
This appeal was heard and the court pronounced the following:
Abhay Saraswat,Advocate General
The present appeal is filed against the judgment conviction and sentence
1
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/22/2023
4:17:17 PM
Signature Not Verified
dated 22.12.2022, passed by Special Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial
No.79/2017, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under sections 459 &
307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5-5 years of R.I. (each) with fine of
Rs.2000/- for each offence respectively with default stipulations.
2. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for
compounding the offences.
3.The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar of the Court. In compliance to the said order, the appellants were
produced before the Principal Registrar in Escort and complainants also
appeared before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a
report dated 30.11.2023 has been submitted that accused/appellants and the
complainants have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no
dispute remaining between the accused/appellants and the complainants.
4.Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as sentence is concerned,
the appellants have already undergone jail sentence of one year approximately.
The incident had taken place in the year 2017. It is further submitted that both
the parties have amicably settled their dispute and therefore, while maintaining
the conviction, the jail sentence of the appellants 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.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state has opposed the appeal.
6. Looking to the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise.
Nevertheless, the appellants have not impugned the merits of conviction and
confined their arguments as to sentencing of the appellants on the basis of
compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine
the sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through the order of the
2
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 12/22/2023
4:17:17 PM
Signature Not Verified
trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the statement of the
witnesses but also well supported by documentary evidence adduced before the
trial Court. In view of the whole evidence produced by the prosecution,
conclusion of learned trial Court regarding conviction appears to be on sound
reasoning, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this finding with
regard to conviction under Sections 459 and 307 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.
7
. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part and effect of
compromise placed by the complainant/injured and accused person. In the
case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr, 2014 (6)
SCC 466 relying on the various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the
compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal
proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.21 has observed as under:-
"21. However, we have some other cases decided by this
Court commenting upon the nature of offence under
Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR
was lodged under sections 147,148,149,323,307,552 and
506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final
report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At
that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The
court
accepted
the
settlement
and
quashed
the
proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this
Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012
AIR SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that
inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of
wide plentitude with no statutory limitation and the
guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or
(2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing
so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the
court observed:
“Since the offences involved in this case are of a
personal nature and are not offences against the
3
Sign