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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6478

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
B. P. SHARMA, J
JITENDRA @ JITAI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2669 of 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Abhishek Rishi
For the Respondents: Shri Atul Dwivedi, Shri Yash Sonkar

The court held that in exceptional cases, compromises can influence sentencing even for non-compoundable offenses, focusing on justice and social harmony.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - IPC - Sections 148, 307/149 - Arms Act - Section 25(1-B)(b) - Appeal against conviction - Conviction upheld, but jail sentence modified to period already undergone due to parties entering compromise - Court highlights the importance of justice and social harmony in sentencing. (Paras 16, 15, 14)

(B) Compounding of offences - The court may consider amicable settlements in cases of non-compoundable offences, reducing sentences while maintaining convictions based on the nature of the case and parties' reconciliation. (Paras 14, 11)

Table of Content
1. parties discuss compromise and sentencing. (Para 4)

ORDER With consent, arguments are heard finally.

Appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2)

of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2013 passed by the learned th X Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (MP) in Sessions Trial No.354/2012 (State of MP Vs. Manoj Sonkhare @ Others) whereby appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 148 , 307/149 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and RI for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, with default stipulations. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR

2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged, FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Charges were framed against the appellant(s)/accused. Accused has refuted the charge and claimed to be tried. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty for commission of aforementioned offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned preceding paragraph No.1. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant/accused has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, I.A. No.1228/2024 & I.A.

No.1229/2024-applications under Section 320 of CrPC seeking leave to compound offence as also for compromise have been filed stating that dispute between the parties have been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further. The applications are duly supported by affidavit of complainant Moshim.

4. Vide order dated 11.09.2025, matter was referred to the Registrar (Judicial-II) of this Court for verification of compromise. Registrar (Judicial-II) in compliance of this Court's order has verified the aforesaid compromise and has submitted the report dated 24.09.2025 wherein it is mentioned that parties have amicably settled their dispute Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR and have arrived at compromise on their own free will & volition and without any threat, inducement or coercion to settle their dispute and the compromise is voluntarily. Appellants/accused and complainant have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

5. The purpose of compromise is to maintain peace and harmony in the relations. Section 320 of CrPC deals with compounding of offence.

6. On the basis of the verification report dated 24.09.2025 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 appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 148 , 307/149 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act , which are non-compoundable offence.

7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant recorded under Sections 148 , 307/149 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act by the Trial Court, but has prayed for reduction of jail sentence. It is submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2012 i.e. almost 13 years ago. It is further submitted that appellant was in custody from 22.02.2012 to 20.08.2013 (almost six months) during trial. He has already served out the jail sentence from the date of judgment i.e. 20.08.2013 to 11.11.2013 i.e. the date of suspension of his jail sentence (almost three months). Thus; in total, appellant has suffered the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR incarceration for a period of more than nine months so far in

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top