A compromise in a non-compoundable Section 307 offence may justify reducing sentence to the period undergone.

The appellant was prosecuted in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Habibganj, Bhopal, for an offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

After trial, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, convicted him under Sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000, with default consequences, by judgment dated 22 September 2010.

The appellant preferred an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

During the appeal, the appellant and the complainant entered into a voluntary compromise, which was verified by the Registrar (Judicial-II); both parties were identified by their respective counsel.

The appellant did not challenge the conviction on merits and sought reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, stated to be eight months and six days.

1. Whether the conviction under Sections 307/34 IPC was sustainable upon an independent examination of the trial record, notwithstanding that the appellant had confined his appeal to the question of sentence?

2. Whether a voluntary compromise between the parties could be considered to reduce the sentence for an offence under Section 307 IPC, despite the offence being non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC?

3. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence could be reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction?

The Court applied Section 374(2) CrPC, governing appeals against conviction by a Sessions Court, and Sections 307/34 IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted.

Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC; therefore, the Court could not formally compound the offence merely because the parties had settled their dispute.

However, relying on Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 675, the Court held that a compromise may nevertheless be considered as a relevant circumstance while determining the substantive sentence.

It further relied on Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala, AIR 2017 SC 1745, and Murali v. State, (2021) 1 SCC 726, for the principle that, even in serious non-compoundable offences, an amicable settlement may justify reduction of sentence while maintaining the conviction, depending on the facts and circumstances.

Although the appellant challenged only the sentence, the Court independently examined the conviction as required in an appellate proceeding.

It found that the prosecution evidence was cogent and reliable and that the trial court’s finding of guilt was based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence.

The conviction was therefore not perverse, illegal, or otherwise infirm and was affirmed.

Regarding sentence, the Court distinguished between compounding the offence and considering the compromise as a mitigating circumstance.

Since Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable, the compromise could not result in acquittal or formal compounding.

Nevertheless, the compromise had been voluntarily verified, the complainant had no objection, and the appellant had already undergone approximately eight months and six days of incarceration.

Considering these circumstances and the principles stated in the Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

The appellant’s conviction under Sections 307/34 IPC was affirmed.

However, the sentence of imprisonment was modified and reduced to the period already undergone.

The fine of ₹5,000, if not already deposited, was directed to be paid within two months; failure to pay would attract the default sentence imposed by the trial court.

As the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds were discharged, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned court.