GULAB DAS & ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P.

              (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 177


                  GULAB DAS & ORS.                             A
                             v.
                     STATE OF M.P.
           (Criminal Appeal No. 2126 of 2011)
                  NOVEMBER 16, 2011
                                                               B
     [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

     s.320 - Compounding of offences - Held: The offences c
which are not compoundable uls.320 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
- However, even when compounding is rejected, the fact of
settlement between the parties can be taken into consideration 0
while determining the question of sentence to be awarded to
the accused-appellants - Compromise - Penal Code, 1860
- ss.307, 323, 325..
    Sentence/Sentencing:
                                                               E
     Reduction of sentence - Fight between two brothers and
their family - Registration of cross cases against each other
- Conviction and sentence - Settlement between the parties
- Prayer for lenient view in regard to sentence awarded to them
- Held: The parties were related to each other - Incident took F
place 19 years back - Appellant 2 and 3 were in twenties at
that time - Appellants already served substantial part of
sentence - Offence uls. 307 not compoundable - Therefore,
conviction upheld, however, sentence reduced to period
already undergone - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.307, 323, 325. G

    Dispute over the partition fence between the
properties belonging to two brothers gave rise to fight.
Both the parties received injuries resulting in registration

                            177                                H
     178   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A of cross cases by them. While the case registered against
   the appellants was for offences punishable under
   Sections 307, 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, the case
   registered against the opposite party was for the alleged
   commission of offences punishable under Sections 325,
B 323, 294 read with Section 34 IPC. Separate charge sheets
  in relation to both the cases were filed. The Sessions
  Judge acquitted the appellants for some of the offences
  while convicting them for some other with which they
  were charged. Appellant no.1 and 2, were resultantly
c sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one
  month under Section 323 IPC. Appellant No.2 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
0
  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. The
E High Court dismissed the appeal filed against the
  conviction and sentence.

       In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
  appellant that the parties have entered into an amicable
F settlement/compromise and therefore, this Court could
  allow the matter to be compounded or in the alternative
  take a lenient view in regard to the sentence awarded to
  them.

G       The question that fell for determination was whether
    the prayer for composition of the offence under Section
    307 IPC could be allowed having regard to the
    compromise arrived at between the parties.

        Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
H
       GULAB DAS & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                 179

       HELD: 1. The offences which are not compoundable          A
 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. Therefore, the prayer for permission to compound
 the offence for which Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were               B
  convicted is rejected. 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.
  Even when the prayer for composition has been declined,        c
  the fact of settlement between the parties can be taken
. into consideration while dealing with the question of
  sentence. Apart from the fact that a settlement has taken
  place between the parties, there were few other
  circumstances that persuade to interfere on the question
                                                                 0
  of sentence awarded to the appellants. The incident in
   question had taken place in the year 1994. The parties
  were related to each other. Both appellant nos. 2 and 3
  were at the time of the incident in their twenties. The
  incident had led to registration of a cross case in which      E
  the trial court has already convicted opposite party for
   offences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC
   and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a
   period of two years and a fine of Rs.300/- and
   imprisonment of six months under Section 323 IPC. The
   parties having settled the matter, would be approaching       F
   the High Court for an appropriate order in the appeal
   pending before it. More so, the appellants have already
   served substantial part of the sentence awarded to them.
   In the totality of the circumstances the settlement arrived
   at between the parties is a sensible step that will benefit   G
   the parties, give quietus to the controversy and
   rehabilitate and normalise the relationship between them.
   While upholding the order of conviction recorded by the
    Courts below, the sentence awarded to the appellants is
                                                                 H
    180     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   reduced to the sentence already undergone by them.
    [Paras 7-10] [183-A-H; 184-A-C]

        Ram Lal and Anr. v. State of J & K (1999) 2 SCC 213:
    1999 (1) SCR230; lshwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

8
    (2008) 15   sec
                  667: 2008 (14) SCR 574 - relied on.

                          Case Law Reference:

          1999 (1) SCR 230         relied on             Para 7

          2008 (14) SCR 574        relied on             Para 7
c
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 2126 of 2011.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 18.12.2009 of the High
    Court of Judicature Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench in
D   Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2000.

          June Chaudhari, Prabhat K..imar Rai, Shakil Ahmed Syed
    for the Appellants.

E       Siddhartha Dave, Vibha Datta Makhija, Jemtiben Ao,
    Kunal Verma for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
        2. This appeal calls in question the correctness of an order
    passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
    whereby Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2000 filed by the
    appellants challenging their conviction and the sentences
    awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge,
G   Hoshangabad, in Sessions Trial No.60/1995 has been
    dismissed.

         3. Appellant No.1, Guiab Das and his brother, Veeraji are
    residents of village Sonasavri, District Hoshangabad in the
H
        GULAB DAS & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                     181
                [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
State of Madhya Pradesh. Both of them have built their                A
respective houses that are adjacent to each other. Three days
prior to the incident Guiab Das had put up a partition fence
between the two properties. On 30th September, 1994 at about
7.45 a.m. while Veeraji was shifting the partition fence, alleging
that it encroached on his property, an exchange of hot words          B
started between Guiab 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 !tarsi, District Hoshangabad. While the case registered       c
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              D
 relation to both the cases were filed by the police before the
 Jurisdictional Magistrate who committed the cases to the Court
 of Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad. The case against the
 appellants was made over to the First Additional Sessions
 Judge, Hoshangabad, who acquitted the appellants for some
 of the offences while convicting them for some others with which     E
 they were charged. The operative portion of the trial Court's
 order was in the following words:

     'Therefore, accused persons Rajendra @ Rajjan and
     Chelan is being held guilty for charges under section 307        F
     IPC for causing deadly injuries with intention to cause
     death of Veeraji and accused Gopaldas is being held guilty
     under section 323 IPC for causing voluntary simple injuries
     on Veeraji and accused persons Chelan is held guilty
     under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries on             G
     Phoolabai. Accused Chandrashekhar is being acquitted
     from charges under sections 307, 307/34, 325/34, 323/34,
      323/34 IPC. Accused Gulabdas is being acquitted from
      charges under sections 307, 307/34, 325/34, 323/34, 323/
      34 IPC and accused Chelan is acquitted from charges             H
    182     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         under sections 307/34, 325/34, 323/34 IPC."

        4. Appellant No.1 Guiab Das, and Appellant No.2, Chelan
  were resultantly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
  period of one month under Section 323 IPC. Appellant No.2
  Chelan was further sentenced to undergo rigorous
8
  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
C 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.

      5. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the
D appellants appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
  Jabalpur which failed and has been dismissed by the order
  impugned in this appeal. The appellants have in the present
  appeal by special leave assailed the said order of dismissal.

E       6. Ms. June Chaudhari, learned senior counsel for the
  appellants argued that during the pendency of the case in this
  Court the parties have entered into an amicable settlement/
  compromise and filed Criminal Misc. Petition No.20418 of
  2011 for permission to compound the offences of which the
  appellants stand convicted. She drew our attention to the
F compromise deed filed along with the application and argued
  that since the parties had buried the. hatchet by amicably
  settling their disputes, this Court could allow the matter to be
  compounded or in the alternative take a lenient view in regard
  to the sentence awarded to them. it was further submitted that
G so far as Appellant No.1 is concerned he has already served
  the sentence awarded to him under Section 323 IPC.

      7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the only
  question that falls for determination is whether the prayer for
H composition of the offence under Section 307 IPC could be
       GULAB DAS & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P.                 183
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
allowed having regard to the compromise arrived at between A
the parties. Our answer is in the negative. 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 B
the other. Reference in this regard may be made to the
decisions of this Court in Ram Lal and Anr. v. State of J & K
 (1999) 2 SCC 213, and lshwar Singh v. State of Madhya
 Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 667. We have, therefore, no hesitation
 in rejecting the prayer for permission to compound the offence c
 for which Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 stand convicted.

     8. 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. That is precisely the D
approach which this Court has adopted in the cases referred
to above. Even when the prayer for composition has been
declined this Court has in the two cases mentioned above taken
the fact of settlement between the parties into consideration
while dealing with the question of sentence. Apart from the fact E
that a settlement has taken place between the parties, there
are few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on
the question of se{ltence awarded to the appellants. The
incident in question had taken place in the year 1994. The
parties are related to each other. Both Appellant nos. 2 and 3 F
were at the time of the incident in their twenties. It is also
noteworthy that the incident had led to registration of a cross
case against the complainant party in which the trial Court has
already convicted Veeraji and others for offences punishable
under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC and sentenced them to G
 undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of
 Rs.300/- and imprisonment of six months under Section 323
 IPC. We are told that the parties having settled the matter, will
 approach the High Court for an appropriate order in the appeal
                                                                H
    184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A pending before it. More so, the appellants have already served
  substantial part of the sentence awarded to them.

       9. 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
8
  and rehabilitate and normalise the relationship between them.

       10. 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
C by them. The appeal is to that extent allowed and the impugned
  orders modified. The appellants shall be set free forthwith if not
  otherwise required in any other case.

   D.G.                                     Appeal partly allowed.