Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manni @ Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50210
1 CRA-1114-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1114 of 2008
MANNI @ MANISH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shubham Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Vinita Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the State.
None for the complainant/objector.
ORDER
With consent, arguments are heard finally.
This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2007 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (MP) in Sessions Trial No.20/2007 (State of MP Vs. Manni @ Manish) . By the said judgment, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 327 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 10/7/2025 12:59:09 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50210 2 CRA-1114-2008
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on the basis of report lodged, FIR bearing Crime No.1064/2006 was registered against the appellant/accused at Police Station Habibganj, District Bhopal for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Charges under Sections 307, 327 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant/accused. Accused/appellant has refuted the charge and claimed to be tried. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.
3. 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 offence punishable under Sections 307, 327 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced them as mentioned preceding paragraph No.1. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.
4. Pursuant to order dated 11.07.2025 passed by this Court, Registrar (J-II) of this Court recorded the statements of both parties on 23.09.2025 and verified the correctness and genuineness of the compromise. As per the report, 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 the dispute and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 10/7/2025 12:59:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50210 3 CRA-1114-2008 the compromise is voluntarily. Appellant/accused and complainant has been duly identified by their respective counsel.
5. On the basis of the verification report dated 23.09.2025 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 307, 327 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, which are not compoundable.
6. 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 307, 327 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 2006 i.e. almost 19 years ago. It is further submitted that appellant was in jail from 04.11.2006 to 12.01.2007 (total 69 days) & from 08.10.2007 to 29.11.2007 (total 52 days) during trial and after post conviction, he has served out the sentence from the date of judgment i.e. 29.11.2007 to 25.08.2008 i.e. the date of suspension of their jail sentence granted by this Court (total 269 days). Thus, in total, appellant has served out 390 days incarceration (more than a period of one year) in this case 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 10/7/2025 12:59:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50210 4 CRA-1114-2008 prayed that appellant's jail sentence may be reduced/modified to the extent of period already undergone by him as no fruitful purpose would get served by sending him behind the bars again.
7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court and has submitted that after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has rightly found the appellant 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 appellant has not assailed the findings of conviction on merits and has 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 appellant. Upon independent reappraisal, I find that the conclusion so recorded by the trial Court is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 10/7/2025 12:59:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50210 5 CRA-1114-2008 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 appellant under the aforesaid provisions of law are hereby upheld.
10. Turning to the point of compromise, it is also significant to note 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 10/7/2025 12:59:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50210 6 CRA-1114-2008 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 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 Sections 307, 327 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 10/7/2025 12:59:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50210 7 CRA-1114-2008 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. Thus, though the offence under Sections 307, 327 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act , are non-compoundable, however, considering the nature of the accusation, the compromise has voluntarily been entered into between the parties; the fact that the complainant has no objection to compounding the offence, as also the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant and also the fact that appellant is facing the agony for the last 19 years as the incident had taken place in the year 2006, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
15. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307, 327 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act , as recorded by the trial Court, is hereby affirmed. However, the appellant's sentence as awarded by the Trial Court for the alleged offences is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him so far. The fine amount, if not already deposited, shall be deposited within a period of one month. However, if the appellant fail to pay the fine amount within the stipulated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR JAIN Signing time: 10/7/2025 12:59:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50210 8 CRA-1114-2008 time, he would suffer the punishment as awarded by the trial court in default of payment of fine.
16. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and personal bonds shall stand discharged.
17. The order of the Trial Court with regard to the seized property is affirmed.
18. Learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
19. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.
20. A copy of this order along with record of Trial Court, if available, be sent immediately to the 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: 10/7/2025 12:59:09 PM