ISHWAR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 574 · Decided: 17-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 574 
\ 
' 
A 
ISHWAR SINGH 
~
II. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 17, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D. K. JAIN, JJJ 
Penal Code, 1860: 
).--_,
c 
s.307 - Conviction by trial court affirmed by High Court 
- During pendency of appeal before Supreme Court compro-
mise between accused and victim - Joint prayer by them that 
sentence be reduced to period already undergone - HELD: 
Offence. uls 307 is not compoundable - However, ·court may 
take into account the factum of compromise in reducing the 
'D sentence - Keeping in view the facts of compromise between 
the parties, the age of accused at the time of offence and other 
factors, sentence reduced to the period already undergone -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 320 - Sentencing -
Compromise between parties. 
E 
The appellant-accused along with three others was 
prosecuted for commission of offence punishable u/s 307 
r/w s.34 IPC on the allegation that the accused persons 
attacked the complainant-PW-4. The trial court held the 
F 
appellant guilty and convicted him u/s 307 IPC and -sen-
tenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. 
\ 
The other three were given benefit of doubt. The High 
l-.. 
Court declined to interfere. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, on oral 
G prayer made on his behalf, complainant-victim was joined 
as party respondent no. 2. During the pendency of the 
appeal a compromise.was stated to have been arrived at 
between the accused and the complainant-victim. There-
y 
fore, it was jointly prayed on their behalf that the appel-
H 
574 
ISHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA 
575 
PRADESH 
!ant-accused be released treating the sentence already A 
-~-l 
undergone by him as sufficient. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 An offence punishable under Section 307, 
IPC is not a compoundable offence. Section 320 of the 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly states that 
no offence shall be compounded if it is not compound-
~ 
-i 
able under the Code. At the same time, however, while 
dealing with such matters, this Court may take into ac-
-1" 
count a relevant and important consideration about com- c 
promise between the parties for the purpose of reduction 
of sentence. [para 13) [578-F-G] 
Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 9 SCC 255; 
Murugesan & Ors. V. Ganapathy Velar (2001) 10 sec 504 
and Jshwarlal v. State of MP JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1); and D 
Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1988 SC 2111 -
referred to. 
~· 
1.2 In the instant case, the incident to.ok place more than 
fifteen years back; the parties are relatives, residing in one 
E 
. 
and the same village. The appellant was about 20 years of 
age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first of-
fence. Considering the totality of the facts and circum-
stances, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of im-
prisonment awarded to the appellant-accused is reduced 
F 
to the period already undergone. [para 16-17) (579-D-E] 
... 
f 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
(2006) 9 sec 255 
referred to 
para 14 
(2001) 1 o sec 504 
referred to 
para 14 
G 
JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1) 
referred to 
para 14 
AIR 1988 SC 2111 
referred to 
para 14 
'~, 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1626 of 2008 
H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2007 of 
r~-
. the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal 
Appeal No. 817 of 1994· 
Niraj Sharma for the Appellant. 
B 
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Anil Pandey, C.D. Singh, Sunny 
Chowdhary, Vairagya Vardhan Dubey, Aditya Singh and Ambhoj 
Kumar Sinha for the Respondent. 
r-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment 
and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the First Ad-
ditional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh on Decem-:-
ber 2, 1994 in Sessions Trial No.258 of 1993 and .confirmed by 
D the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) on Septem-
ber 11, 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.817 of 1994. 
3. The case of the prosecution. was that on March 3, 1993 
t 
between 7.00 and 8.00 a.m., P-4 Devi Singh was attacked by 
E four persons, lshwar Singh, Laxman Sin_gh, Dule Singh and 
Ganpat Singh, accused Nos.1 to 4 respectively. All the accused 
were, therefore, charged for commission of offences punish-
able under Section 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (IPC). After usual in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.