SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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:

Advocates:
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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top