Compromise in non-compoundable offences justifies reduction of sentence while maintaining the conviction.

On December 3, 2018, the complainant, Anmol Jain, and his friends were intercepted by appellant Akash Dubey near Karmaita

Akash Dubey, along with associates including appellant Jay Choudhary, abused the complainant; Akash Dubey subsequently inflicted knife injuries on victim Mohit Vishwakarma’s chest and thigh, while Jay Choudhary assaulted him with hands and fists

Following a trial, the Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, on November 25, 2025, convicted Akash Dubey under Section 307 of the IPC and Jay Choudhary under Section 307/34 of the IPC, sentencing both to five years of rigorous imprisonment

During the pendency of these appeals, the parties entered into a compromise, verified by the Registrar (Judicial-II) on February 3, 2026

The appellants did not challenge the merits of the conviction but sought a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone

1. Whether an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC can be compounded based on a private settlement between the parties.

2. Whether a compromise arrived at post-conviction can be considered as a mitigating factor to reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

The court primarily applied Section 307 (Attempt to murder) and Section 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code

It acknowledged that Section 307 is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the court noted that while Section 307 involves personal injury, it is often treated as a personal rather than a societal offence in the context of settlements

Per Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. (2009) and Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala (2017), the court established that even if an offence is non-compoundable, a compromise is a relevant circumstance for reducing the substantive sentence while maintaining the conviction

The Court independently examined the trial record and affirmed the conviction, finding the eye-witness accounts and medical evidence regarding the knife injuries to be sound and reasoned

On the matter of sentencing, the Court observed that Akash Dubey had served approximately seven months and ten days, and Jay Choudhary approximately six months and eleven days

Although statutory compounding was barred, the Court applied the "proportionality and rehabilitation" doctrine from Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2021), reasoning that since the parties wished to live in peace and the appellants were first-time offenders, further incarceration would serve no fruitful purpose

The Court determined that the ends of justice would be met by substituting the remaining jail term with an enhanced fine, thereby using the compromise as a tool to "avoid bitterness" between the families

However, it modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants

The Court enhanced the fine from ₹2,000 to ₹10,000 for each appellant, directing that the fine be deposited within 30 days of release, failing which the original default stipulations would apply

The appellants were ordered to be set at liberty forthwith