(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 one0 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 (2008) 15 sec 667: 2008 (14) SCR 574 - relied on. 8 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 rigorous8 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 controversy8 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.

(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 one0 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 (2008) 15 sec 667: 2008 (14) SCR 574 - relied on. 8 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 rigorous8 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 controversy8 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.