Bhuwan vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.R. Waghmare, J.—This appeal has been filed u/s 374 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.05.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Manawar in S.T. No. 349/1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo six months R.I. The matter has come up in appeal before this Court and Counsel for the appellant has however submitted that during the pendency of appeal the matter has been settled between the complainant and appellant and I.A. No. 5660/2013 filed by the appellant was taken on record in presence on complainant Balu. Counsel candidly admitted that the offence u/s 307 of the IPC is not compoundable under the schedule of 320 of the Cr.P.C. However placing reliance on Badrilal Vs. State of M.P. [(2005) 7 SCC 55] Counsel stated that under the similar circumstance the Apex Court had directed the effect of the compromise can only be taken into consideration at the time of final decision. And since no more grievance remains, Counsel prayed that even if the conviction of the appellant is upheld they had already under gone the sentence of three months approximately and the period of sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. Counsel also relied on Pavan and others v/s. State of M.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 111/2011 decided by this Court on 30.04.2012.

Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has not opposed the prayer in view of the authority of the Apex Court in the matter of Badrilal (supra).

Shri Harish Tripathi, Counsel for the complainant has given the statement at Bar that the complainant has no objection, if the matter is compromised and the appellant is let off.

On considering the above submissions, I find that appeal needs to be partly allowed. Moreover the appellant has undergone three months of custodial sentence. In view of the above although I uphold the conviction of the accused for offence u/s 307 of the IPC the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by placing reliance in the matter of Badrilal (supra).

Next, it is also specifically directed that the appellant shall pay an enhanced amount of further Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be deposited by the accused appellant in the Trial Court and paid to the injured/complainant Balu as compensation u/s 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. Failure to comply with the directions and the appellant shall undergo the sentence as directed by the Trial Court without reference to this Court. With the aforesaid modification the appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Appellant is in custody and may be released upon receipt of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.

Cc. as per rules.