The court has the power to compound non-compoundable offences in certain circumstances, such as when the parties have reached a compromise and there is no public interest involved.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by

the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.09.2023 passed by

the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No. 17/2021 whereby

the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-, Section 324 of IPC and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, under

Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of

Rs. 2,000/- and Section 307 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo

R.I. for four years (on each count) with fine of Rs. 4,000/-, with default

stipulations.

2. As per prosecution story, on 19.11.2020, appellant is alleged to have

committed marpeet with complainant Tej Singh Thakur and assaulted him

with a knife, due to which complainant party sustained various injuries.

Complainant filed FIR at the concerned police station. On the basis of which

the police registered the offence against appellant. After completion of the

investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Magistrate Court and

thereafter, matter was committed before the Sessions Court.

3. Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant. Appellant abjured

the guilt and pleaded for innocence. Thereafter, the trial Court took evidence

of the prosecution and defence and after hearing arguments of both the

3

parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences as stated

hereinabove vide impugned judgment.

4. The appellant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment filed this

instant appeal on various grounds.

5. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for

compounding of the offence. The said application was sent for verification

before the Registrar(Judicial). In compliance of said order, appellant and

complainant appeared before the Registrar (Judicial). The compromise was

verified and a report has been submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) before

this Court that appellant/accused and the complainant have entered into

compromise with mutual consent. Now there is no dispute remaining

between the appellant/accused and the complainants. But as per aforesaid

report, offence under Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as sentence is

concerned, the appellant has already undergone jail sentence from

20.11.2020 to 16.02.2021 and further from 11.09.2023 he is in jail till date.

7. Compromise has been already done between the parties, therefore, while

maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period

already undergone by enhancing the amount of fine on the basis of

compromise.

4

8. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer,

however, the learned counsel for complainant has no objection and fairly

admitted that they have entered into compromise in the case with the

appellant.

9. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits and of

conviction and confined their arguments as regards sentencing the appellant

on the basis of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the

view to examine sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through

the order of the trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the

eye-witnesses including injured persons, but also well supported by

medical testimony and documentary evidence adduced before the trial

Court. In view of evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of trial

Court regarding conviction appears to be sound with reasonings, therefore,

it does not warrant any inference. Accordingly, the finding with regard to

conviction under aforesaid sections is hereby confirmed.

10. So far as the offence under Section 323 and 325 of IPC are

concerned, it is compoundable with the leave of this Court. Since, there is no

public interest involved in this case, so le