Compromise in a non-compoundable offence may justify reducing imprisonment to the period already undergone.

The appellants were convicted by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in S.T. No. 409/2023 for offences under Sections 148, 326/149 and 323/149 of the IPC.

They were sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 148, five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 326/149, and six months’ rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 323/149.

The prosecution case was that, on 13 March 2023, the appellants restrained and abused the injured complainant, Chappu @ Sarfaraz Khan, and assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries.

An FIR was registered for offences including Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149 and 506 of the IPC.

During the appeal, the injured and the appellants entered into a compromise, which was verified by the Registrar (J-II); the injured stated that the compromise was voluntary and free from coercion.

The appellants withdrew their application for suspension of sentence and bail because of the compromise.

Whether the compromise could be accepted in respect of the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and whether the appellants were entitled to acquittal for that offence.

Whether, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offences under Sections 148 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC, the compromise could be considered for reducing the custodial sentence to the period already undergone.

Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governs the compounding of offences; the Court held that the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC was compoundable in the circumstances of the case.

Relying on Ram Pujan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2418, the Court applied the principle that a compromise in a non-compoundable offence may justify reduction of imprisonment, while maintaining the conviction and imposing or retaining a fine.

The Court also referred to Surindra Nath Mohanthy v. State of Orissa, 1999 AIR SCW 2199, concerning the effect of settlement where the offence is not legally compoundable.

The compromise was duly verified, and the injured complainant confirmed that it had been entered into voluntarily and without pressure.

Since Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC was found compoundable, the Court allowed the compromise in respect of that offence, acquitted the appellants, and quashed the corresponding sentence.

In relation to Sections 148 and 326/149, the Court did not treat the compromise as extinguishing the conviction because those offences were non-compoundable.

However, it considered the settlement, the nature of the injuries, the fact that the injuries were not dangerous to life, and the appellants’ circumstances in determining sentence.

The medical evidence showed multiple lacerated/incised injuries, including a parietal fracture classified as grievous, while the remaining injuries were simple.

Applying the sentencing principle in Ram Pujan, the Court concluded that continued incarceration was unnecessary once the fine imposed by the trial court was retained.

The appellants were acquitted of the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and the sentence imposed for that offence was quashed.

The convictions under Sections 148 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC were maintained, but the custodial sentences were reduced to the period already undergone, with the fines imposed by the trial court retained.

Upon deposit of the fines, if not already deposited, the appellants were directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.