Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phool Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 4 May, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 4 th OF MAY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 566 of 1999
BETWEEN:-
1. PHOOL SINGH S/O CHHOGALAL THAKUR (DEAD)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANGILAL S/O DEVISINGH, AGED ABOUT 54
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION, R/O:
VILLAGE RAJORA, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. INDARSINGH S/O MANGILAL THAKUR, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION,
R/O: VILLAGE RAJODA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SURENDRASINGH S/O RAMCHANDRA AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VILLAGE RAJODA, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. JITENDRASINGH S/O HAJARILAL THAKUR, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION,
R/O: VILLAGE RAJODA, DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION BANK NOTE PRESS, DEWAS DIST. DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI VISHAL PANWAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE AND SHRI HARISH CHANDRA TRIPATHI -
ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 04-05-2023
18:43:48
2
following:
JUDGMENT
Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 13.04.1999 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No.157/1993, whereby all the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/149 and 148/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and 2 years R.I. As per the prosecution story, on 01.06.1993, at about 7:30 PM, at Jhanda Chowk, Rajoda, appellant No.1 Phoolsingh, Ramsingh, Bharatsingh, Dinesh and Vikramsingh and others were talking to each other. Then accused Devisingh came there and told to Phoolsingh to park the water tanker in front of his house and if he will stop him to do so, he (Phoolsingh) would face dire consequences for it. After an hour, accused Devisingh, Indersingh, appellant No.1 Phoolsingh, appellant No.2 Mangilal, Surendra and Jitendra also came there. They were armed with lathi, sword, lohangi and farsi. Indersingh hit Phoolsingh by means of sword on his head, due to which he fell down on the ground. When Yashwantsingh intervened between them, Indersingh also hit him with sword. Bharatsingh also came there to resuce, but he was also beaten by the accused persons. Then accused Kedar, Jagdish, Hajari, Ishwar and Kailash came there armed with lathi. Thereafter, the villagers came there and pacified all. Yashwantsingh with the help of Surendersingh sat Phoolsingh on motorcycle and rushed to the hospital. Dehati Nalishi was reported and registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 207 of IPC.
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Dewas, who has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Later on, case was transferred to the IV ASJ, Dewas. After completion of the trial and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:43:48 3 evaluating the evidence produced on record, the trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as referred herein above.
During the pendency of this appeal, legal representatives of the victim Bharatsingh and Phoolsingh have filed an application under Section 320(4)(b) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence with the appellants on behalf of their deceased father. Death certificate issued by the Panchayat has also been produced regarding the death of the injured Phoolsingh and Bharatsingh. Therefore, I.A. No.1551/2023 is allowed and legal representatives of the deceased Phoolsingh and Bharatsingh are permitted to compound the offence with the appellants.
Legal representatives of the deceased Phoolsingh and Bharatsingh and victim Yashwantsingh have filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence with the appellants.
Both the parties have also filed a joint compromise petition and they were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar/Registrar of this Court for verification of compromise vide order dated 06.04.2023 passed by this Court and Principal Registrar/Registrar was directed to submit report in this regard.
As per the verification report, both the appellants have entered into compromise with their free will and there is no undue influence, pressure, force, duress or coercion over the parties, but offence under Section 307/149, 148/149 of IPC are non-compoundable.
Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2009 SCC 675 in a similar case where the offence under Section 307 of IPC was committed and parties had compromised the matter while noting the fact that though the offence is not compoundable but sentence can be reduced in view of the compromise, has Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:43:48 4 held as under:
13. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC is not a compoundable offence. Section 320 of the Code o f Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly states that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compoundable under the Code. At the same time, however, while dealing with such matters, this Court may take into account a relevant and important consideration about compromise between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence.
14. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan & Ors. v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State o f M.P., JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1) , this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant- accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State o f Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 , such offence was ordered to be compounded.
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 circumstance which, the Court may keep in mind.
16. In the instant case, the incident took place before more than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and they are also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:43:48 5 of age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present.
Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he is not released on bail.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused No.1) is reduced to the period already undergone.
1 7 . For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and accordingly allowed by maintaining the conviction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Court but by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of payment of fine is not disturbed. If the appellant has not paid the amount of fine, he will pay such amount within four weeks from today."
Similarly in the matter of Bankat and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 Cr.L.R. (SC) 17 where the conviction was under Sections 325 and 326 read with section 34 of IPC it has been held that:
" 1 6 . However, considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court, the fact that 10 years have elapsed from the date of the incident, and the further fact that the appellants have already undergone several months' imprisonment, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone besides imposing a fine of Rs.5000/- on each of the accused under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellants concerned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:43:48 6 shall undergo imprisonment fora further period of six months. We also refrain from imposing any separate sentence on the other counts of offences. Out of the fine amount, if realised, a sum of Rs. 4000/- also be paid to each of the injured as compensation."
In the matter of Hasi Mohan Barman and another Vs. State of Assam and another reported in (2008) 1SCC (Cri.) 161 where the offence was under Section 313 read with Section 34 of IPC considering the similar issue the Hon'™ble Supreme court has held that :
"10. The first decision on this point was rendered by this Court in Ram Pujan and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the trial court had convicted the accused under Section 326 IPC which is a non- compoundable offence and had sentenced the accused to four years R.I. The High Court took into consideration the compromise between the appellants/accused and the injured and reduced the sentence to two years R.I. This Court, after observing that the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence, reduced t h e sentence to the period already undergone which was little more than four months and further imposed a fine of Rs.1500/- on each of the appellants. Surendra Nath Mohanty and another vs. State of Orissa is a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. It was observed that in view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. an offence can be compounded only in accordance with the provisions of the said section. The Court followed the view taken in the case of Ram Pujan and having regard to the fact that the parties had compromised and a period of ten years had elapsed from the date of the incident reduced the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:43:48 7 sentence of five years R.I. Imposed under Sections 307 and 326 IPC to the period of sentence already undergone which was three months and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-. 1 1 . There are several other decisions of this Court wherein factor of compromise has been taken into consideration and the sentence has b e e n reduced mostly to the period already undergone and they are Bankat and another vs. State of Maharashtra, Badrilal vs. State of M.P. and Jetha Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan.
12. Following the view taken in the above noted cases we are of the opinion that the complainant and the principal accused having already married it will be in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 313 IPC is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which appears to be about ten months. The fine imposed upon the appellants is also set aside. The appellants are on bail. Their sureties and bail bonds are discharged." I n the present case also the parties have duly entered into the compromise and compromise has been verified by this court and has been found to be voluntarily entered into by the complainant.
From perusal of the record, it reveals that there was no enmity between the complainant and appellants and the incident had taken on a trivial issue. Both the parties belongs to the same family and they are close relatives. Appellants are facing trial for last 30 years. Appellants have already suffered jail incarceration since 12.04.1993 to 20.07.1993 and 13.04.1999 to 15.06.1999, therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce their jail sentence to the period Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:43:48 8 already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed upon the appellants is maintained and if the appellants fail to pay the fine amount, they shall undergo imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court.
Having regard to the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed by maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by them and by maintaining the fine amount in light of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The appellants Mangilal, Indersingh, Surendersingh and Jitendersingh are already on bail. Their sureties and bail bonds stand discharged.
Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned trial Court alongwith the record for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:43:48