LexGULAB DAS & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 177 GULAB DAS & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2126 of 2011) NOVEMBER 16, 2011 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A B 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: 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 E - 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 0 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. 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.