REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  2126   OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.474 of 2011)

Gulab Das & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

State of M.P. …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

              1. Leave granted.

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  

1

Judge,  Hoshangabad,  in  Sessions  Trial  No.60/1995  has  

been dismissed.

3. Appellant No.1, Gulab Das and his brother, Veeraji are  

residents 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. 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 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 Itarsi,  

District Hoshangabad. 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  

2

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,  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 they were charged. The operative portion of the  

trial Court’s order was in the following words:

“Therefore,  accused  persons  Rajendra  @ Rajjan  and  Chetan is being held guilty for charges under section   307 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 Chetan   is held guilty under Section 323 IPC for causing simple   injuries  on  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  Chetan  is  acquitted  from  charges  under   sections 307/34, 325/34, 323/34 IPC.”       

4. 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  

3

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.

5. 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  

impugned in this appeal. The appellants have in the present  

appeal by special leave assailed the said order of dismissal.  

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  

4

attention  to  the  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  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 forf composition of the offence under Section 307  

IPC  could  be  allowed  having  regard  to  the  compromise  

arrived  at  between  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 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,  

5

and Ishwar 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  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 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  that  a  

settlement has taken place between the parties, there are  

few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on  

the question of  sentence 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 were at the time of the incident in their twenties.  It is  

6

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 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 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  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 by them. The appeal is to that extent allowed  

7

and the impugned orders modified. The appellants shall be  

set  free forthwith  if  not  otherwise  required  in  any other  

case.     

………………………....………J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……………………..…….……J. (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi November 16, 2011

8