Bombay High Court
RAMDAS SAKHARAM JARHADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court declined to allow compounding of the Section 307 offence but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, maintaining the conviction.
Summary
The appellants were convicted for assaulting Shivnath and Bhanudas with sticks, causing grievous injuries, under Sections 307 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149, 143 and 148 of the IPC. While the appeal was pending, the parties reached an amicable compromise and the accused sought acquittal or, alternatively, a reduction of sentence to the period already served. The State opposed any compromise, citing the seriousness of the offence (Section 307 IPC) and the permanent disability suffered by the injured. The Court held that a compromise cannot set aside a conviction for a non‑compoundable offence like attempted murder, but it may be considered as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing. Accordingly, the conviction was upheld, the sentence was reduced to the time already undergone, bail bonds were cancelled, and the appellants were ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether a compromise or compounding is permissible in an appeal against conviction for an offence under Section 307 IPC (a non‑compoundable offence).
- Whether the sentence may be reduced to the period already served on account of the compromise and other mitigating factors.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 148, 149, 307, 324
Subjects
- compromise
- non‑compoundable offence
- Section 307 IPC
- sentence reduction
- mitigating circumstance
- criminal appeal
- bail
- grievous injury
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40145
{1} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2024
1. Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad
Age: 63 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna.
2. Dnyandev Sakharam Jarhad
Age: 62 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna.
3. Vinod Dnyandev Jarhad
Age: 30 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna.
4. Kailas Ramdas Jarhad
Age: 31 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna. ….Appellants
(Orig. Accused No.1, 2, 4 & 5)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Officer In-charge,
Police Station, Ambad,
District Jalna.
2. Shivnath Narayan Patole
Age: 70 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna. …..Respondents
(Compensation is awarded to
Respondent No.2)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 641 OF 2026
IN APPEAL/917/2024
1. Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad
Age: 65 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna.
{2} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
2. Dnyandev Sakharam Jarhad
Age: 62 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna.
3. Vinod Dnyandev Jarhad
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna.
4. Kailas Ramdas Jarhad
Age: 33 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna.
[Applicant nos.2 to 4 are in Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar Central Prison] ….Applicants
(Orig. Accused No.1, 2, 4 & 5)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Officer In-charge,
Police Station, Ambad,
District Jalna.
2. Shivnath Narayan Patole
Age: 72 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna.
3. Bhanudas Narayanrao Patole
Age: 70 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o: Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna. …..Respondents
(Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the injured
witnesses & Respondent No.3 is informant)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4630 OF 2025
IN APPEAL/917/2024
Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad
Age: 63 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o. Parada, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna. ….Applicant
(Accused No.1)
{3} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Officer In-charge,
Police Station, Ambad,
District Jalna.
…..
Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for Appellants/Applicants.
Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Prajakta P. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
…..
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 01 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 03 SEPTEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. In this Appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order of
conviction rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambad
dated 19.04.2024 in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2021 (Old Sessions Case
No. 29 of 2017), recording guilt of the appellants for offences under
Sections 307 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149, 143 and 148 of IPC.
2. In trial court, prosecution was launched against in all six
persons in consequence to registration of crime bearing no. 83 of
2014 for above offences on allegations that, on 23.05.2014, accused
persons named in the FIR came armed with sticks, questioned
informant’s brother Shivnath as to why his son Somnath teased their
{4} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
daughter and thereafter, after hurling abuses, they assaulted by
means of sticks on the head of Shivnath, who fell unconscious. When
informant Bhanudas went to rescue, at that time, he was also
assaulted by means of sticks. Accused, who were duly chargesheeted,
were tried vide Sessions Case No. 41 of 2021 and the same ended up
in conviction for above offences. Hence, instant appeal.
3. During pendency of the appeal, appellants, namely Ramdas,
Dnyandev, Vinod and Kailas, vide Criminal Application No. 641 of
2026, are praying to acquit them in the light of compromise reached
between the complainant and the accused. In support of such
compromise, apart from affidavits of the parties, judgments of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another v. State of
M.P. [2022 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (SC) 291]; Ramawatar v. State of
Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2021 SC 5228] and a Full Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Maya Sanjay Khandare and another v. State
of Maharashtra [2021 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 1] are taken aid of.
4. Criminal Application No. 4630 of 2025 was pressed into
service by one of the accused, i.e. Ramdas, for suspension of sentence
and grant of temporary bail on medical grounds and the said prayer
{5} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
was granted by this Court by order dated 15.10.2025 allowing
temporary bail for a period of three month, but the same was time to
time extended.
5. Today, arguments are heard on permissibility of compromise in
an appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction for
offence under Section 307 of IPC.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Salunke pointed out that, during
pendency of appeal, parties have reached to an amicable settlement.
Normalcy has been restored in their relations and now parties, on
their own accord, have decided to bury the differences and they have
placed on record affidavits to that extent which are duly verified by
the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. In support of
compromise, he sought reliance on the above referred rulings which
he has placed on record.
7. In the alternative, he would submit that, if this Court is not
inclined to accept the compromise and acquit the accused, then, in
view of compromise, accused persons be let off by reducing the
sentence to the period already undergone which, according to him, is
{6} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
permissible by considering it as a mitigating circumstance. He
pointed out that, appellant Ramdas is 65 years of age and he himself
is a patient of paralysis. That, appellant Dnyandev is also of similar
age. Moreover, each of the appellants have undergone over 26
months of incarceration each. Hence, he urges for releasing the
appellants by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
8. Learned counsel for respondent/injured concedes regarding
compromise between the parties having taken place and
respondent/injured having no objection if the appellants are
acquitted or released by reducing their sentence to the period already
undergone.
9. Learned APP would strongly oppose by pointing out that
compromise is impermissible in view of conviction being recorded for
serious offence like Section 307 IPC. She would point out that,
injured was rendered paralytic. That, had he not received medical
aid, the offence would have been of murder. Consequently, in the
light of gravity of the offence, she urges to reject the prayers for both,
compromise as well as letting off the accused persons on already
undergone sentence. In support of her contention that reliance
{7} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
cannot be placed on a precedent without discussing whether it was
rendered in same factual and legal background, and that the words
in earlier judgments cannot be interpreted as statutes, learned APP
placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
cases of Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Jagdamba Oil
Mills and another (2002) 3 SCC 496; Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U. P.
Public Service Commission and others AIR 2003 SC 2661 and
Vanashakti v. Union of India 2026 INSC 761.
10. In the light of above, the question which arose for
consideration is whether, in an appeal against conviction, parties can
be allowed to compound or compromise inter se between themselves
an offence under Section 307 IPC which is proved to be committed.
11. On going through the evidence on record, it is emerging from
the FIR that, alleged occurrence is of 23.05.2014 at around 07.00 to
07.30 p.m. Informant PW1 Bhanudas, who himself is an injured,
deposed at Exhibit 66 narrating the role of each of the accused for
assaulting Shivnath as well as himself by means of sticks. His injury
certificate is at Exhibit 102. He seems to have suffered injury over
parietal region of the head, but nature of injury is certified to be
simple.
{8} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
12. PW4 Shivnath, who is examined at Exhibit 77, has also named
appellants visiting their house and carrying out assault by means of
sticks. PW6 medical expert deposed about this witness being brought
in the casualty with fresh injury which was grievous in nature. In
para 2, it is stated that Shivnath was neurologically serious with
glasgow coma scale which falls under very serious coma condition
and on the CT Scan finding, he was operated. Medical expert
deposed that he found extradural hematoma bilaterally with sub-
arachnoid hamorrhage and defuse axonal injury and his brain was
damaged. Doctor testified that the patient cannot recover fully and
said injury causes permanent disabilities to some organs.
13. Apart from above two injured witnesses’ account, prosecution
seems to have adduced evidence of PW5 Nandu who is direct eye
witness and he testified about seeing accused come armed with
sticks, Somnath being questioned for teasing girl, and he saw assault
being mounted by means of sticks. He has also named and marked
presence of accused appellants.
14. Thus, here, there is evidence of very two injured witnesses and
an independent eye witness. The injuries suffered by PW4 Shivnath
{9} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
are indeed grievous in nature. The impact of the said injury is
clarified by the medical expert PW6, who had occasion to treat him.
Taking the gravity of the offence into consideration and the manner
and mode of assault, this Court is not inclined to accept prayers of
the accused for permitting compounding or compromise and to
acquit them.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised prayers in
alternative that, if this Court is not inclined to acquit the accused on
the strength of compromise, then at least the appellants be let off by
reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and according
to him, compromise can be taken into account as a mitigating
circumstance.
16. In the light of above, it would be appropriate to deal with the
judicial precedent regarding prayers for reducing the sentence to the
period already undergone, i.e. while dealing with an appeal against
conviction.
17. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 2009 SC
{10} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
675 and it is worthwhile to reproduce relevant para 15, which is as
under :
“15. 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.”
Again in the judgment in Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v.
State of Kerala AIR 2017 SC 1745, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed
as under :
“10. In series of decisions i.e. in Bharat Sing v. State of MP,
and others 1990 (Supp) SCC 62; Ramlal v. State of J. and
K. (1999) 2 SCC 213; Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka
and another (2009) 1 SCC 711, this Court allowed the
parties to compound the offence even though the offence is
a non-compoundable depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court while
imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to the
period already undergone.” (emphasis laid)
{11} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
Further, reference can also be made to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v.
State of Maharashtra AIR OnLine 2021 SC 743, wherein, in para 28,
following observations are made :
“28. Giving punishment to the wrong doer is the heart of
the criminal justice delivery system, but we do not find any
legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the
trial court in meeting out the just punishment to the
accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the
charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of
this Court, it would appear that this Court takes into
account a combination of different factors while exercising
discretion in sentencing, i.e. proportionality, deterrence,
rehabilitation etc.
29. The compromise if entered at later stage of incident,
or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor in
interfering the sentence awarded to commensurate with the
nature of offence being committed to avoid bitterness in the
families of the accused and the victim and it will always be
better to restore their relations, if possible, but the
compromise cannot be taken to be a solitary basis until the
other aggravating and mitigating circumstances also
support and are favourable to the accused for molding the
sentence which always has been examined in the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand.” (emphasis laid)
{12} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
18. In view of aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, here, it is to be noted that the incident is of May 2014 and
more than a decade has lapsed since then. Complainant/injured
namely, Bhanudas and PW4 Shivnath are signatories to the
compromise. It is stated in Criminal Application No. 641 of 2026
which is jointly verified by applicant/accused Ramdas, injured
Shivnath and informant Bhanudas that, applicants Ramdas and
Dnyandev are brothers, whereas applicant Vinod is son of applicant
Dnyandev and applicant Kailas is son of applicant Ramdas whereas
respondents Shivnath and Bhanudas are relatives. During pendency
of criminal appeal, by intervention of common relatives and elder
villagers matter is amicably settled and compromised and now
visiting terms inter se between their families are restored. That,
respondent nos. 2 and 3 have no ill will or grudge against applicants,
nor applicants have any grudge against said respondents and that
they have decided to reside peacefully and maintain cordial relations
and consequently, prayers for amicable settlement are urged for.
19. At Exhibit “A” is the affidavit of injured Shivnath and Bhanudas
and at Exhibit “B” are the terms of compromise. There is report of
{13} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
learned Registrar (Judicial) dated 15.06.2026 regarding terms of
compromise reached at being verified and parties having appended
their thumbs and accepted the terms of compromise.
20. This Court has taken note of the background in which the
incident took place, coupled with the manner and nature of assault
and the consequential impact of the injuries on the person of injured,
more particularly Shivnath, and therefore, this Court is not inclined
to accept the prayers for permitting compounding or compromise.
However, taking into account the relations inter se between the
parties, and that almost a decade has lapsed since the occurrence and
when relations between the parties are restored to normalcy, in the
light of such peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more
particularly when informant and injured have come forward to settle
the matter, deriving strength from the above discussed judicial
precedent, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence to the period
already undergone, by maintaining the conviction. Hence, following
order :
ORDER
I. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2024 as well as Criminal Application
No. 641 of 2026 are hereby partly allowed.
{14} CrAppeal-917-2024 +
II. The conviction of the appellants by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ambad vide judgment and order dated 19.04.2024 in
Sessions Case No. 41 of 2021 (Old Sessions Case No. 29 of
2017) for offences under Sections 307 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149,
143 and 148 of IPC is hereby maintained, however, the sentence
is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by
the appellants and the fine imposed by the trial court.
III. Bail bonds of the appellant Ramdas stand cancelled.
IV. Appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if they are otherwise not
required in any other offence.
V. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
regarding disposal of muddemal.
VI. Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2024 and Criminal Application No.
641 of 2026 are accordingly disposed off.
VII. In view of disposal of the Appeal, Criminal Application No. 4630
of 2025 also stands disposed off.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
Checking your session…