Kallan vs State of M.P.

Brij Kishore Dubey, J.—This Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) has been preferred against the judgment dated 14/09/2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind in Criminal Appeal No. 186/2005 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01/08/2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 21/2004 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind whereby the petitioner herein/accused has been convicted u/s 326 of IPC and sentenced to serve two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. The facts of the case have been detailed in the impugned judgment by the learned Courts below, therefore, this Court does not want to repeat the same overall again.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by learned Appellate Court. He further submits that the complainant, Munna Singh filed an application u/s 320(2) of the Code for granting the permission to compound the offence and compromise with the accused. The petitioner has already undergone 76 days of the sentence, the fine amount has already been deposited and has no previous criminal conduct and, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of Manjappa Vs. State of Karnataka, .

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant, Munnal Singh settled the subject-matter of the crime with the petitioner amicably and now he does not want to prosecute the petitioner and, therefore, on the basis of the compromise, the petitioner may be discharged from the offence. In this regard, the complainant filed I.A. No. 8224/13 alongwith his affidavit.

The complainant, Munna Singh by presenting himself before this Court also submits that now all the disputes have been resolved amicably with the petitioner and, therefore, he does not wish to prosecute the petitioner.

Since the petitioner has been convicted u/s 326 of IPC which is not compoundable, however, the matter was compromised by the complainant with the accused and they wanted to live in peace, the same shall be considered at the time of awarding the sentence.

Learned Appellate Court and the learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record found guilt of the petitioner. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned Courts below for convicting the petitioner to be trustworthy, this Court does not want to deviate from the same. As before this Court, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Courts against the petitioner has not been challenged by the petitioner, hence, the aforesaid finding is hereby affirmed.

With regard to the sentence awarded is concerned, the petitioner has been sentenced by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court as stated hereinabove. No previous criminal conduct of the petitioner has been proved by the prosecution. As per the information received from the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Lahar, District Bhind, the petitioner served 02 months 13 days of the sentence till 20/08/2013 and is continuously serving the sentence.

In the case of Manjappa (supra), the appellant, Manjappa was convicted u/s 323 and 325 of the Code and sentenced to 03 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- respectively. The Appellate Court set aside the order of conviction u/s 323 of the Code, however, affirmed the order of conviction u/s 325 of the Code but reduced the sentence from 01 year to 06 months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-. That order was challenged by filing the revision petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court affirmed the order of conviction, however, reduced the sentence to the of simple imprisonment for one month and fifteen days with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The Hon''ble Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period already remained in custody for about 15 days.

In the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr Vs. State of Orissa, , the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 05 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-. That Order was challenged before the High Court. After considering the entire evidence on record, the High Court by acquitting the appellants u/s 307 of IPC altered their conviction under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer 06 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence u/s 326 of IPC and no separate sentence was passed on the other counts of offences. During the pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court, an application for compounding of the offence has been filed, a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the matter and held that the offence u/s 326 of IPC is not compoundable, however, considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute outside the Court, the sentence has been reduced to the period already undergone, i.e., 03 months rigorous imprisonment.

In the present case, the incident had taken place as far back as on 22/04/2000, the accused is a labourer and had already suffered the agony of the case in the Trial Court for about 05 years and now about 08 years in the Sessions Court and this Court and suffered the sentence of 73 days till 20/08/2013 and is continuously serving the sentence. The offence has also been compounded by the complainant. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him with fine as imposed by the Courts below.

Consequently, this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the petitioner passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court u/s 326 of IPC is hereby affirmed but the sentence is set aside and instead thereof, the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail with fine as imposed by the learned Courts below. The petitioner is in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty if not required in any other criminal case.

With the aforesaid modification, this revision petition is disposed of finally. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.