Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45216
1 CRA-1262-2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1262 of 2001
RAMESH AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri B.J. Chourasia with Shri Sudeep Patel - Advocates for the appellants.
Shri Manish Kumar Mukhariya - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
None for the complainant.
ORDER
As per the report dated 05.12.2024 received from Chief Judicial Magistrare, Chhatarpur, it is revealed that appellant No.4 Babu @ Barelal Yadav has died 19 years ago during the pendency of this appeal. In view whereof, vide order dated 02.09.2025 this criminal appeal stands abated so far as it relates to appellant No.4 Babu S/o Barelal.
With consent, arguments are heard finally.
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC, 1973 has been preferred assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2001 delivered in Special Case No.79/2000 (State of MP Vs. Halke @ Others) by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chhatarpur (MP) by which the appellants were convicted for offence Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 9/16/2025 11:15:34 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45216 2 CRA-1262-2001 under sections 452/34, 341/34, 294/34, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, RI for 15 days, RI for two months, RI for two months and RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2 . During the pendency of this appeal, I.A. No.5558/2012-application under Section 320(1) of CrPC and I.A. No.5559/2012-application under Section 320(2) of CrPC seeking leave to compound offence as also 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 the complainant(s)/victim.
3 . Vide order dated 19.06.2012, 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 05.07.2012 wherein it is mentioned that parties have amicably settled their dispute 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(s) have been duly identified by their respective counsel.
4 . The purpose of compromise is to maintain peace and harmony in the relations. Section 320 of CrPC deals with compounding of offence.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 9/16/2025 11:15:34 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45216 3 CRA-1262-2001 5 . On the basis of the verification report dated 05.07.2012 furnished by Registrar (J-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a compromise on their free-will and volition. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 323/34, 294/34, 341/34 of IPC which are compoundable in nature. Hence, appellants are acquitted from the offence under Sections 323/34, 294/34, 341/34 of IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. However, the appellants were also convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 452/34 of IPC as also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , which are non- compoundable offence.
6 . At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants recorded under Section 452/34 of IPC and also Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) 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 2000 i.e. almost 25 years ago. It is further submitted that appellants have served out the incarceration period of one day so far. It is further submitted that compromise has already been entered between the parties and parties have amicably settled their dispute. Therefore, it is prayed that appellants' jail sentence may be reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone by them.
7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 9/16/2025 11:15:34 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45216 4 CRA-1262-2001 by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Though, the appellants have not assailed the findings of conviction under Section 452/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on merits and have confined the submissions only to the question of sentence on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties; this Court, is nonetheless under a legal obligation to scrutinize the correctness and sanctity of the conviction recorded by the trial Court. On this aspect, I have carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence adduced during trial. The prosecution case is not only corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses, but also stands duly supported by other materials placed on record. The trial Court, while appreciating the entire evidence in its proper perspective, has arrived at a well-reasoned finding of guilt against the appellants. Upon independent reappraisal, I find that the conclusion so recorded by the trial Court is based on cogent reasoning and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the findings of conviction of the appellants under Section 452/34 of IPC and also Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby upheld.
10. Turning to the point of compromise, it is also significant to note Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 9/16/2025 11:15:34 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45216 5 CRA-1262-2001 that the compromise has been filed at the stage of appeal before this Court. On this aspect, it would be relevant to note the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2009 SC 675], wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:
"15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstances which, the Court may keep in mind."
11. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1745 is also worth referring in the context of this case as under:-
"10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State of M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 71 1, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence even though the offence is a non-compoundable depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 9/16/2025 11:15:34 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45216 6 CRA-1262-2001 may, in view of the compromise arrive at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction."
12. In the case of Murali vs. State; (2021) 1 SCC 726 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that the fact of amicable settlement/compromise between the parties can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in quantum of sentence of convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences.
13. In the present case, it is seen that the parties have entered into compromise and have amicably settled their dispute, which has been duly verified. It is true that the offence under Section 452/34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not compoundable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; therefore, the compromise cannot be allowed. However, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in aforementioned case laws, in exceptional circumstances, considering the voluntary settlement between the parties, the Court may give effect to such compromise at the stage of final disposal of appeal and further that where parties have amicably resolved their disputes and the complainant has unequivocally supported the compromise; the Court may, in the interest of justice and to maintain social harmony, modify the relief suitably by reducing the substantive sentence.
14. Considering the nature of the accusation, the compromise has voluntarily been entered into between the parties; the fact that the complainant(s)/injured has no objection to compounding the offence, as also Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 9/16/2025 11:15:34 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45216 7 CRA-1262-2001 the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants and also the fact that appellants are facing the agony for the last 25 years as the incident had taken place in the year 2000, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants under Section 452/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
15. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under Section 452/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , as recorded by the trial Court, is hereby affirmed. However, the appellants' sentence as awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 452/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them so far. The fine amount, if not already deposited, shall be deposited within a period of two months from today. However, if the appellants fail to pay the fine amount within the stipulated time, they would suffer the punishment as awarded by the trial court in default of payment of fine.
16. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
17. The order of the Trial Court with regard to disposal of the property is hereby affirmed.
18. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 9/16/2025 11:15:34 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:45216 8 CRA-1262-2001
19. The present criminal appeal is disposed of to the extent indicated herein above.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned for information and necessary action.
21. Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA) JUDGE @shish Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 9/16/2025 11:15:34 AM