Facts of the case
- Appellant No.1, Gulab Das and his brother, Veeraji wereresidents of village Sonasavri, District Hoshangabad in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Both of them have built their respective houses that are adjacent to each other.
- Three days prior to the incident Gulab Das had put up a partition fence between the two properties.
- whileVeeraji was shifting the partition fence, alleging that it encroached on his property, an exchange of hot words started between Gulab Das and his two sons who are appellant Nos. 2 & 3 on one hand and Veeraji, his wife and sons on the other.
- A free fight followed in which both the parties received injuries resulting in registration of cross cases by them in Police Station .
- While the case registered against the appellants was for offences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, that registered against the opposite party was for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 294 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Separate charge sheets in relation to both the cases were filed by the police before the Jurisdictional Magistrate who committed the cases to the Court of Sessions Judge.
- The case against the appellants was made over to the First Additional Sessions Judge, who acquitted the appellants for some of the offences while convicting them for some others with which they were charged.
- Appellant No.1 Gulab Das, and Appellant No.2, Chetan were resultantly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 323 IPC. Appellant No.2 Chetan was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Appellant No.3 was similarly sentenced to undergo three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
- Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the appellants appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which failed and has been dismissed by the order.
- They filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
- The Counsel for the appellants argued that during the pendency of the case the parties have entered into an amicable settlement/compromise and filed a petition for permission to compound the offences of which the appellants stand convicted.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court Stated that, “This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other.We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permission to compound the offence for which Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 stand convicted. Having said that we are of the view that the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellants.In the totality of the circumstances we are of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties is a sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalise the relationship between them. In the result, while upholding the order of conviction recorded by the Courts below, we reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants to the sentence already undergone by them. The appeal is to that extent allowed and the impugned orders modified.”
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT