Supreme Court of India
ISHWAR SINGHversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1169
- Decided
- 17 October 2008
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- C K THAKKER
Holding
An offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable, but the Court may consider a compromise between the parties as a relevant mitigating factor and reduce the sentence accordingly.
Summary
Ishwar Singh was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for assaulting Devi Singh and was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court. While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, the accused and the victim reached a compromise and jointly prayed for the sentence to be deemed satisfied by the time already served. The Court held that although an offence under Section 307 is non‑compoundable, a compromise between the parties may be taken into account as a mitigating factor for sentencing. Considering the accused's young age, first offence, the long lapse of time, and the familial relationship, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while leaving the fine untouched. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a non‑compoundable offence under Section 307 IPC can be compounded or the sentence reduced on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim.
- Whether the Supreme Court may consider a compromise as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in such offences.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 34
Subjects
Section 307 IPCnon‑compoundable offencecompromisesentence reductionmitigating circumstancescriminal appealSupreme Courtsentencing
Judgment
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 574
\
'
A ISHWAR SINGH
II.
~
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2008)
OCTOBER 17, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND D. K. JAIN, JJJ
).--_,-
Penal Code, 1860:
s.307 - Conviction by trial court affirmed by High Court
c - 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
appellant guilty and convicted him u/s 307 IPC and -sen-
F 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
to the period already undergone. [para 16-17) (579-D-E] F
... f
CASE LAW REFERENCE
(2006) 9 sec 255 referred to para 14
(2001) 1o 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
four persons, lshwar Singh, Laxman Sin_gh, Dule Singh and
E
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 investigation, the matter was com-
mitted to the Court of Session in view of charge under Section
F 307, IPC which was exclusively triable by a Court of Session.
~ ~
4. The learned Judge, vide his Judgment and Order dated
December 2, 1994, held that the prosecution was successful in
partly establishing the case: On the basis of evidence of pros-
G ecution witnesses, the trial Court held that it would be appropri-
ate to give benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 to 4 and accord-
ingly, the trial Court acquitted three accused. Regarding ac-
~-"
cused No.1 lshwar Singh (appellantherein), the Court ruled that
it was proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' th~t he had attacked
victim Devi Singh and had administered knife blows on the per-
H
ISHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA 577
PRADESH (C.K. THAKKER, J.]
-~ son of the injured. Accordingly, the Court convicted appellant- A
accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 307,
IPC ..
5. Regarding quantum of sentence, the Court observed
that at the time of incident, lshwar Singh was aged about 20
years and it was his first offence. Considering those factors, 8
'
the trial Court ordered him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
/ 1 three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to un-
dergo imprisonment for six months more.
-•'
6. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged c
by accused No.1-appellant herein by filing Criminal Appeal
No.817 of 1994. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore
Bench) again considered the evidence on record and the find-
ings recorded by the trial Court and held that no error either of
fact or of law had been committed by the trial Court and the
D
order of conviction recorded by the High Court was in conso-
'+ nance with law. Regarding sentence also, the High Court held
that it could not be said that the sentence awarded on the ap-
pellant was excessive ·or harsh. Accordingly, the appeal .was
dismissed. The appellant who was on bail was directed to sur-
render and to. undergo the remainder part of the sentence. E
7. The said order is challenged in the present appeaL On
January 15j 2008, notice was issued by this Court. On August
13, 2008, at the oral prayer of learned counsel for the appellant,
injured Devi Singh was ordered to be joined as party respon- F
... ; dent No.2 and notice was issued to him by making it returnable
within two weeks. The notice was served and the injured ap-
pe.ared through a lawyer.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
G
9. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that during
"'J the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, mutual com-
promise has been arrived between the parties, i.e. accused-
lshwar Singh on the one hand and the complainant-victim Devi
Singh on the other hand.
H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
r~-
A 10. An affidavit is also filed by the appellant-accused No.1
in this Court. In paragraph 3, itis sated;
"The accused petitioner and the complainant Devi Singh
are members of the same community and reside
permanently in the same village and are also related to
B each other. Now the relations between the accused and
the complainant and their families are cordial and there is r- ~
no surviving dispute of any kind between the parties. Father
of the accused, Shankarlalji is uncle of the complainant.
""
He is very old and due to old age he needs to be looked
c after by his son i.e. accused lshwar Singh. If lshwar Singh
is released from jail in view of the cordial relations between
the parties, both the families would be able to live together
peacefully without any ill will".
11. It was, therefore, jointly prayed on behalf of the parties
D
that the appellant may be released by treating. the sentence al-
ready undergone by the appellant-accused· as sufficient. r
12. An affidavit is also filed by victim Devi Singh wherein he
has stated that he is the complainant-injured. It is stated that the
E contents in the affidavit filed by appellant accused regarding com-
promise between accused No.1 and the complainant are true. A
prayer was made by the learned counsel for the parties to dis-
pose of appeal on the basis of compromise between the parties.
13. Now, it cannot be gainsaid that an offence punishable
F under Section 307, IPC is not a compoundable offence. Sec- \ ,.
tion 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly
states that no offence shall be compounded if it is not coin-
poundable under the Code. At the same time, however, while
dealing with such matters, this Court may take into account a
G relevant and important consideration about compromise be-
tween the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence. J'
14. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255,
Murugesan & Ors. v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and
lshwarlal v. State of M.P, JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1), this C9urt,while
H
ISHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA 579
PRADESH [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, A
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, AIR
1988 SC 2111, such offence was ordered to be compounded.
15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate B
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 coun-
sel for the appellant deserves consideration that while impos-
ing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between C
the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which, the Court
may keep in mind.
16. In the instant case, the incident took place before more
than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same
village and they are also relatives. The appellant was about 20 D
years of age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first
t offence. After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody.
During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was
enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he
again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had ap- E
plied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he is not released
on bail. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in
our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of im-
prisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused No.1) is reduced
to the period already undergone. F
17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be
partly allowed and accordingly allowed by maintaining the con-
viction recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the Appel-
late Court but by reducing the sentence already undergone by
the appellant. The sentence of payment of fine is not disturbed. G
If the appellant has not paid the amount of fine, he will pay such
amount within four weeks from today.
18. o·rdered accordingly.
R.P. Appeal partly allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 307 IPC"Sign in to search