Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 11 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9199 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. MANISH S/O MANGI LAL,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DESHRAL@CHHOTU
S/O DEVI LAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NAVAL S/O MANGILAL,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BHURA S/O BABULAL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RADHESHYAM S/O CHAMPA LAL PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SANDEEP S/O KISHORE,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. KISHORE S/O MANGI LAL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 13-09-
2023 18:37:12
2
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. ARVIND S/O OMKARLAL,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. ROHIT S/O KISHORE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. RAJU S/O BHANU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
GAIKWAD, MHOW GAON,
TEHSIL MHOW DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(MS. SMRITI RAZOAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION KISHEN GANJ,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS. NISHA JAISWAL -PANEL LAWYER)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
T he present appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore in Sessions Trial No.311/2013, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for offence under section 452 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- each and in default to undergo 15 days Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 13-09- 2023 18:37:12 3 imprisonment and discharged the appellants from offences under Section 323/149, 294 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act 1959.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 30.10.2012 complainant filed a report that on 29.10.2012 due to previous petty dispute applicant hurled abuses and on being stopped they assaulted the complainant party with stone, lathi, sword so also with kicks and fists due to which they sustained injury. Further allegations is that they threatened to kill the complainant party. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR bearing Crime No.667/2012 was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 294, 323, 506 of IPC.
3. During the investigation, spot map was prepared. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Laboratory and after recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. During trial the appellants and the complainants filed an application for compounding the offences before the trial Court.
4. On due consideration the learned trial Court discharged the appellants Arvind, Naval, Chotu @ Deshraj, Rohit, Sandeep, Manish, Radheshyam and Kishore from offence under Sections 323/149, 294 148, 325, 325/149 and 506 of IPC, 1860, appellants Bhora and Raju were discharged from offences under Section 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act, 1959 in addition to the aforesaid offences of IPC. Appellants have preferred this appeal to set aside the impugned order and to acquit them from the offence under Section 452 of IPC, 1860.
5. During the pendency of this appeal, parties have filed an application I.A. No.12337/2023, an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking compounding of offence in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that that accused/appellants and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 13-09- 2023 18:37:12 4 complainants have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between the accused/appellants and the complainants. Hence prayed for compounding of offence under Section 452 of IPC.
6. Counsel for the appellants submits that so far as sentence is concerned, the appellants have suffered 3 days in jail and the incident had taken place in the year 2012. The appellants have already suffered the ordeal of the trial since 2012 i.e. for a period of 11 years. The offences under sections 294, 148, 325/149, 323/149 and 506 of IPC has already been compromised with the victim/complainants and therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount may be reasonably enhanced which may be directed to be paid to the complainant/injured.
7 . Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under section 452 of IPC is non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
8 . Nevertheless, the appellants have not impugned the merits of conviction and confined their arguments as to sentencing of the appellants on the basis of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine the 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 the injured persons namely Duleribai, Rahul and Sohan, but also well supported by medical testimony and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In view of the whole evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of learned trial Court regarding conviction is appears to be on sound reasonings, it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 13-09- 2023 18:37:12 5 finding with regard to conviction under Section 452 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.
9 . Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part and effect of compromise placed by the complainant/injured and accused persons. In the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr, 2014 (6) SCC 466 relying on the various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.21 has observed as under:-
"21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR was lodged under sections 147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed:
"Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have seen reason and have entered into a compromise." This Court, thus, treated such offences including one under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature and not offences against the society."
10. Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at the stage of appeal before this Court. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 13-09- 2023 18:37:12 6 Court in the Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1745 is 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 711, 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 may, in view of the compromise arrive at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction."
11. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A. No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019, Sohan Jangu & others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRA No.550/2023 on 11.07.2023, has taken a similar view.
12. On this point, this Court is also also inclined to quote the excerpt of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) which is as under:-
"28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the criminal delivery system, but we do not find any legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess the trial Court in Signature Not Verified meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 13-09- 2023 18:37:12 7 before it after he is held guilty of the charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court, it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.
29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of the incident or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor in interfering the sentence awarded to commensurate with the nature of offence being committed to avoid bitterness in the families of the accused and the victim and it will always be better to restore their relation, if possible, but the compromise cannot be taken to be a solitary basis until the other aggravating and mitigating factors also support and are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence which always has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand."
13. As the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to pass the order of acquittal on the basis of compromise but, it is by now well settled that such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence. The appellants and the complainant are living in the same society, they are residing happily since last so many years, they want to live with peace, and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone
14. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2012 and further the appellants want to live with peace and no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the appellants in jail even after the compromise between the parties, this Court is of the view that while maintaining the conviction under sections 452 of IPC, the jail sentence under this offence is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount of Rs.100/- is also Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 13-09- 2023 18:37:12 8 enhanced to Rs.1000/- each. The petitioners are directed to deposit fine of Rs.1000/- each within two weeks from today. The bail bond of the appellants shall be discharged after deposit of the compensation amount. In case of default of payment of fine amount, the appellant shall undergo further 15 days of Simple Imprisonment.
15. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property stands confirmed.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary compliance.
With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off. Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 13-09- 2023 18:37:12