1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 1090 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.8293 of 2018)

MANJIT SINGH                                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.                         Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  arises  out  of  judgment  and  order  dated

02.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal NO.S-1964-SB of 2003 in and by

which the High Court has acquitted accused-Ranjit Singh from

the charges by giving him benefit of doubt but affirmed the

conviction of the appellant-Manjit Singh by the Trial Court and

the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.  The High Court

has also enhanced the fine amount from Rs.1,000 to Rs.50,000/-

with a direction to pay the same to the complainant-Hardip

Singh as compensation.

3. Case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2001 at about

05:30 p.m.  when complainant-Hardip Singh (PW-1) was returning

to  his  village  Baghiari  from  bus  stop  on  his  scooter,

appellant-accused, Manjit Singh, along with his brother Ranjit

Singh, armed with knife, are said to have attacked/inflicted

knife blows on the left and right thigh of the complainant.  On

the complaint lodged by the complainant a case was registered

under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 324

2

read  with  Section  34  I.P.C.   After  completion  of  the

investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused

for the aforesaid offences.

(4) Upon  consideration  of  the  evidence  of  the

complainant/injured person and other witnesses, the Trial Court

convicted the accused appellant-Manjit Singh and his brother-

Ranjit Singh under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced each of

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with

fine  of  Rs.1000/-  each.   For  the  offence  punishable  under

Section 324 I.P.C., they were sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years.  The Trial Court acquitted the

accused-Davinder Singh giving him benefit of doubt.  In appeal,

the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant and

also the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused-

Manjit Singh.  The High Court, however, acquitted the accused-

Ranjit Singh by holding that the charges against him are not

proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt.   Being  aggrieved,  the

appellant-Manjit Singh has preferred this appeal.   

(5) During pendency of the appeal, parties are said to have

compromised the matter.  Learned counsel for the appellant-

accused and the complainant-Hardip Singh, represented by his

counsel Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, have filed affidavit dated

15th July,  2019  stating  therein  that  the  parties  have

compromised the matter.  The appellant-accused has also filed

the compromise deed dated 29th May, 2019 entered into between

the parties.

3

(6) Section  307  I.P.C.  is  a  non-compoundable  offence.   No

permission can be granted to record the compromise between the

parties.  In Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15

SCC 667, the Supreme Court of India has held that in a non-

compoundable offence the compromise entered into between the

parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may

keep in mind for considering the quantum of sentence. In Paras

(13) and (14) of the judgment in  Ishwar Singh (supra) this

Court has held as under:

“13.  In  Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC

255, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and

Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671, this Court,

while taking into account the fact of compromise between

the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-

accused to already undergone, though the offences were not

compoundable.   But  it  was  also  stated  that  in  Mahesh

Chand  v.  State  of  Rajasthan,  1990  Supp.  SCC  681  such

offence was ordered to be compounded.  

14.   In  our  considered  opinion,  it  would  not  be

appropriate  to  order  compounding  of  an  offence  not

compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside

statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited

submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant

deserves  consideration  that  while  imposing  substantive

sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is

indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in

mind.”

4

(7) As  noted  earlier,  in  the  present  case  the  appellant-

accused,  Manjit  Singh,  has  been  sentenced  to  undergo

imprisonment for five years.  The appellant is said to have

served seventeen months of imprisonment.  Taking note of the

compromise entered into between the parties and considering the

relationship of the parties and the facts and circumstances of

the case and also the sentence  undergone by the appellant-

accused,  the  sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed  upon  the

appellant under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. is reduced from

five years/two years to the period already undergone by him.

The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith unless his

presence  is  required  in  any  other  case.   In  view  of  the

compromise entered into between the parties, the fine amount of

Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the appellant is set aside.  If the

said  fine  amount  has  already  been  paid,  the  same  shall  be

refunded to the appellant-Manjit Singh.

(8) The appeal is partly allowed.

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI, JULY 22, 2019.