MURALIversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                         [2021] 1 S.C.R. 201                            201


                             MURALI                                     A
                                 v.
         STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2021)
                        JANUARY 05, 2021                                B
             [N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
                   ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.320 – Compounding of
offence under ss.307, 324 – Prosecution case was that fifteen years
                                                                        C
ago, over a volleyball match, verbal altercation took place between
victim-injured and original accused no.3 and 5 who after sometime
cornered the victim along with the appellants and assaulted him –
Appellant-M struck the victim on his head with a hockey stick and
appellant-R tied to kill him by giving a neck blow with sharp edged
object and in the process, left hand of the victim and the thumb and    D
finger of his right hand got severed – Trial court held appellant-M
guilty under ss.324 and 241 IPC and appellant-R under ss.307 and
341 IPC – Appellant-M was imposed three months rigorous
imprisonment while appellant-R was sentenced to undergo five years
rigorous imprisonment – Sessions court and High Court affirmed
                                                                        E
the order of conviction and sentence – Appellant challenged his
conviction in the instant appeal – However, through an application,
appellants sought to implead the injured-victim and get their
offences compounded based on mutual resolution and peaceful
settlement – Held: There can be no doubt that s.320 CrPC does not
encapsulate s.324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable            F
offences – Notwithstanding thereto, the fact of amicable settlement
can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum
of sentence – The quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants
can be reconsidered in view of the fact that at the time of incident,
the victim was in college and appellants were in early twenties –
                                                                        G
Appellants had no other criminal antecedents, no previous enmity
and now they are married having children – Both the appellants
also served a significant portion of their sentences – In view of the


                                                                        H
                                201
202            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of
      subsequent events, a sympathetic view taken – Quantum of sentence
      of the appellants reduced to the sentence already undergone by
      them – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307 and 324.
            Ram Pujan v. State of UP (1973) 2 SCC 456 ; Ishwar
B           Singh v. State of MP (2008) 15 SCC 667: [2008] 14
            SCR 574 ; Ram Lal v. State of J&K, (1999) 2 SCC 213:
            [1999] 1 SCR 230 ; Bankat v. State of Maharashtra,
            (2005) 1 SCC 343 ; Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan
            (2015) 11 SCC 226 ; Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala
            (2015) 11 SCC 137 : [2015] 4 SCR 563 ; Shankar v.
C           State of Maharashtra, (2019) 5 SCC 166 – relied on.
                            Case Law Reference
      (1973) 2 SCC 456               relied on               Para 10
      [2008] 14 SCR 574              relied on               Para 10
D
      [1999] 1 SCR 230               relied on               Para 12
      [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 406        relied on               Para 12
      (2015) 11 SCC 226              relied on               Para 12
      [2015] 4 SCR 563               relied on               Para 12
E
      (2019) 5 SCC 166               relied on               Para 12
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No 24 of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court
F     of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 1185 of 2013.
            With
            Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2021.
             Jayanth Muth Raj, Raja Rajeshwaran, S. Advs., Ramakrishna
G     Reddy, A. Rajarajan, K. Paari Vendhan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Aditya
      Chadha, T. Harish Kumar, Raghunatha Sethupathy, Ms. Hemlata Rawat,
      Aayushmaan Vatsyayana, Deepak Anand, Advs. for the appearing
      parties.


H
   MURALI v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE                              203


      The following Order of the Court was passed :                             A
                               ORDER
      1. Leave granted.
      2. These connected appeals have been preferred against the
judgment dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court of Madras which upheld              B
Murali’s (appellant in SLP (Crl) No 10813/2019) conviction under
Sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) with a
sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment, and Rajavelu’s
(appellant in SLP (Crl) 10814/2019) conviction under Sections 307
and 341 of IPC and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
                                                                                C
       3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.08.2005, one Senthil
had a verbal altercation with Kumar (original accused no. 3) and
Krishnan (original accused no. 5) during a volleyball match. The injured-
victim (Sathya @ Sathiyajothi) came to the aid of his friend Senthil and
opposed both Kumar and Krishnan. Thereafter at about 2:30PM on
09.08.2005, the appellants – Rajavelu and Murali (original accused              D
nos. 1 and 2) along with Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan (originalaccused
nos. 3, 4 and 5) cornered the victim and assaulted him. Murali allegedly
struck the victim on his head with a hockey stick and Rajavelu tried to
kill him by giving a neck blow with a Veechu Aruval (sharp-edged object),
which was fortunately blocked by the victim. In the process, the left           E
hand of the victim and the thumb and finger of his right hand got severed.
The victim was able to escape and the matter was reported by his friend,
PW-1. All five persons were arrested. It further led to registration of
Crime No. 531 of 2005 under Sections 147,148,341,352, 323, 324, 307
and 34 of the IPC.
                                                                                F
        4. Relying upon the testimony of the victim (PW-3), which was
held to be unimpeachable and stellar, the Assistant Sessions Judge -
cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, vide his judgment dated
28.01.2012 held Murali guilty of wrongfully restraining the victim and
voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. Based upon the
medical evidence and recovery of the Veechu Aruval from Rajavelu,               G
the trial Court further opined that the second-appellant (Rajavelu) had a
clear intention to murder the victim and that if not for the victim defending
himself, a fatal injury would have been caused to his neck and he would
have died instantaneously. Consequently, a concurrent sentence of three
months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and one-month
                                                                                H
204             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC was imposed on Murali,
      and Rajavelu was awarded five years’ rigorous imprisonment under
      Section 307 IPC and another one month rigorous imprisonment under
      Section 341 IPC. Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan were acquitted as there
      was no specific allegation by the victim and no weapon or injury had
      been attributed to them by the prosecution.
B
            5. The convict-appellants challenged the afore-stated judgment
      before two forums, both of which unanimously upheld their conviction.
      The Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge dismissed the first appeal
      through an order dated 20.08.2013 and their criminal revision petition
      before the High Court also met with the same fate vide an order dated
C     01.11.2018.
             6. Unsatisfied still, the appellants have approached this Court
      seeking special leave to appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of
      their conviction. However, through an application filed on 22.11.2019,
      they have sought to implead the injured-victim and get their offences
D     compounded based on mutual resolution and peaceful settlement between
      the parties. This Court, nevertheless, issued limited notice only on the
      quantum of sentence.
            7. The records of the case elicit that the findings of all three
      preceding forums are concurrent and without fault. Not only have the
E     appellants been unable to mount an effective challenge founded upon a
      question of law, their learned Counsels, given the subsequent events and
      change in circumstances, have very fairly restricted their prayer qua
      reduction of sentence only.
             8. A perusal of the applications for impleadment and compounding
F     makes it clear that the parties have on the advice of their elders entered
      into an amicable settlement. The appellants have admitted their fault,
      taken responsibility for their actions, and have maturely sought forgiveness
      from the victim. In turn, the victim has benevolently acknowledged the
      apology, and considering the young age of the appellants at the time of
G     the incident, has forgiven the appellants and settled the dispute. Learned
      Counsel for the victim-applicant has reiterated the same stance during
      oral hearings also.
            9. There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Criminal
      Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”) does not encapsulate Section 324 and
      307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences. Given the unequivocal
H
   MURALI v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE                          205


language of Section 320(9) CrPC which explicitly prohibits any              A
compounding except as permitted under the said provision, it would not
be possible to compound the appellants’ offences.
       10. Notwithstanding thereto, it appears to us that the fact of
amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction
in the quantum of sentence. In somewhat similar circumstances where         B
the parties decided to forget their past and live amicably, this Court in
Ram Pujan v. State of UP[(1973) 2 SCC 456], held as follows:
      “6. The only question with which we are concerned, as
      mentioned earlier, is about the sentence. In this respect we
      find that an application for compromise on behalf of the              C
      injured prosecution witnesses and the appellants was filed
      before the High Court. It was stated in the application that
      the appellants and the injured persons, who belong to one
      family, had amicably settled their dispute and wanted to live
      in peace. The High Court thereupon referred the matter to
      the trial court for verification of the compromise. After the         D
      compromise was got verified, the High Court passed an order
      stating that as the offence under Section 326 of the Penal
      Code, 1860 was non-compoundable, permission to compound
      the offence could not be granted. The High Court all the same
      reduced the sentence for the offence under Section 326 read           E
      with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 from four years to
      two years.
      7. The appellants during the pendency of the appeal were
      not released on bail and are stated to have already undergone
      a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of more              F
      than four months. As the parties who belong to one family
      have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not necessary
      to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period. The major
      offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no
      doubt non-compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be
      taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence.            G
      It would, in our opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence
      of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the
      period already undergone provided each of the appellants
      pays a fine of Rs 1500 in addition to the period of
      imprisonment already undergone for the offence under                  H
206            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A           Section 326 read with Section 34 of the of the Penal Code,
            1860. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants
            shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of
            one year for the offence under Section 326 read with Section
            34 of the of the Penal Code, 1860. Out of the fine, if realised,
            Rs 2000 should be paid to Ram Sewak and Rs 2000 to Ram
B
            Samujh as compensation. We order accordingly.”
            (emphasis supplied)
            11. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by this
      Court including in Ishwar Singh v. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC
C     667],laying down that:
            “13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 9 SCC 255 :
            (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 561] , Murugesan v. Ganapathy
            Velar [(2001) 10 SCC 504 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1032]
            and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [(2008) 15 SCC 671 : JT (1988)
D           3 SC 36 (1)] 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
            : 1991 SCC (Cri) 159 : AIR 1988 SC 2111] such offence was
E           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
F           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.
            15. In the instant case, the incident took place before more
G           than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the
            same village and they are also relatives. The appellant was
            about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime. It
            was his first 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
H
   MURALI v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE                             207


      High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present.              A
      Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted
      and he was not released on bail. Considering the totality of
      facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the ends of justice
      would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
      appellant (Accused 1) is reduced to the period already
                                                                               B
      undergone.”
      (emphasis supplied)
       12. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K,
[(1999) 2 SCC 213], Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 1
SCC 343], Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 11 SCC 226],               C
Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala [(2015) 11 SCC 137], Shankar v.
State of Maharashtra, [(2019) 5 SCC 166], this Court has taken note
of the compromise between parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts
even in serious non-compoundable offences.
       13. Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising   D
out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences
awarded to the appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the
dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the
victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted
given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age.       E
There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion
or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now
and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of
sentence.
       14. Second, at the time of the incident, the victim was a college       F
student, and both appellants too were no older than 20-22 years. The
attack was in pursuance of a verbal altercation during a sports match,
with there being no previous enmity between the parties. It does raise
hope that parties would have grown up and have mended their ways.
Indeed, in the present case, fifteen years have elapsed since the incident.    G
The appellants are today in their mid-thirties and present little chance of
committing the same crime.
       15. Third, the appellants have no other criminal antecedents, no
previous enmity, and today are married and have children. They are the
sole bread earners of their family and have significant social obligations
                                                                               H
208              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     to tend to. In such circumstances, it might not serve the interests of
      society to keep them incarcerated any further.
             16. Finally, both appellants have served a significant portion of
      their sentences. Murali has undergone more than half of his sentence
      and Rajavelu has been in jail for more than one year and eight months.
B            17. Considering all these unique factors, including the compromise
      between the parties, we deem it appropriate to reduce the quantum of
      the sentence imposed on the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, partly
      allowed and sentence of both the appellants is reduced to the
      period already undergone by them. Consequently, they are set free and
C     their bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Any pending applications are
      disposed of accordingly.

      Devika Gujral                                         Appeals partly allowed.


D




E




F




G




H