ORDER
The present revision is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District-Ujjain (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.100153/2015, whereby, the Sessions Judge dismissed the revision by affirming the conviction of petitioners and sentencing them under Sections 509, 354A-(1)(i), 354A-(1)(iv) & 323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo 1-1 year, 1-1 year and 6-6 months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- - Rs.1,000/-, Rs. 1000/- - Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- - Rs.500/- respectively and default stipulations, passed in the judgment dated 09.02.2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khachrod District-Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 125/2023.
2. Briefly stated facts leading to the present revision in short are that on 18.03.2013 at about 18:00 went for natural call, where accused Sanju and Gopal stopped her and shown bad gesture offering her Rs.200/-. Being scared of which, the complainant fled away from the spot and told the story in the same way to her brother-in-law/Satyanarayan. Thereafter, when the brother-in-law of the complainant went there to pacify them, the accused persons assaulted the brother-in-law of the complaint. On the basis of aforesaid, the complainant lodged a complaint that the petitioners assaulted the brother-in-law of the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR bearing Crime No.96/2013 was filed under Sections 341, 323, 509, 506 and 354A-(1)(iii) of IPC.
3. During the investigation, spot map was prepared. After
3
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 trial by the respective Judicial Magistrate First Class, wherein after considering the evidence available on record, the petitioners were acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 341 & 506 (Part-II) of IPC. The petitioners preferred the revision against the judgment of the learned trial Court, wherein the Court has affirmed the findings of conviction and sentenced of the learned trial Court as herein above.
4. During the pendency of this criminal revision, parties have filed an application I.A. No.1915/2020, an application under Section 320(2) 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/petitioners and the complainants have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between the accused/ petitioners and the complainants. Hence prayed for compounding of offence under Section 354A-(1)(i), 354A-(1)(iv) of IPC. In effect of compromise, the petitioners are discharged from the offences under Sections 323/34 and 509 of IPC.
5. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of the Court. In compliance to the said order, parties were also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a report dated 08.08.2023 has been submitted that accused/petitioners and the complainants have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between the accused/petitioners and the complainants.
4
6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as sentence is concerned, the petitioners have already undergone jail sentence approximately five months each and the incident had taken place in the year 2013. The offences under sections 323 & 509 of IPC has already been compromised with the victim/complainant and it is also submitted that the minimum punishment under Section 354A of IPC, is five years which may extend to seven years 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 sections 354A-(1)(i) & 354A-(1)(iv) of IPC is non- compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
8. Nevertheless, the petitioners have not impugned the merits of conviction and confined their arguments as to sentencing of the petitioners 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 person-Satyanarayan, 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 finding with regard to conviction under Section 354A-(1)(i) & 354A-(1)(iv) of IPC, is hereby affirmed. However, so far as the offence under Section 341 and 506 (Part-II) and 323/34 are
5
concerned, in effect of compromise, the petitioners are discharged from the offences of Section 341 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC.
9. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part and effect of compromise placed by the complainant 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
6
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 revision before this Court. 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 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, 2023 LawSuit (MP) 392 and Kanhaiyalal @ Kanha & Others Vs. State of M.P. passed in CRA No.8967/2023 on 25.08.2023, has taken
7
a similar view.
12. On this point, this Court is 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 meeting out the just punishment to the accused facing trial 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 Sections 354A-(1)(i) & 354A(1)(iv) of IPC are 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 petitioners and the complainant are living in the same society, they are residing happily since last so many years, they
8
want to live with peace, and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the petitioners 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 2013 and further the petitioenrs have already undergone jail sentence of approximately five months each and no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioners in jail even after the compromise between the parties, this Court is of the view that while maintaining the conviction under sections 354A-(1)(i) & 354A(1)(iv) of IPC, the jail sentence under these offences is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- under Section 354A-(1)(i) of IPC by each of the petitioner and also by enhancing the fine amount of Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- under Section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC by each of the petitioner within a period of two months. Out of the fine amount so recovered/deposited, Rs.15,000/- be paid to the complainant-Pinki. The amount of fine if already deposited and the amount of compensation, if already paid to the injured, shall be adjusted.
15. The petitioners are on bail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case in jail, subject to deposit the aforesaid enhanced fine as stipulated above.
16. In case, if the petitioners fail to deposit the aforesaid enhanced fine amount within stipulated period, they shall suffer 2-2 months S.I. each.
17. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property
9
stands confirmed.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary compliance.
With the aforesaid, the present revision stands disposed off. Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
vindesh