Compromise in non-compoundable offences justifies sentence modification while sustaining the underlying judgment of conviction.

The incident occurred on October 31, 1998, when the informant (Nimai Pandit s/o Pandu Pandit) was intercepted by the appellants (his relatives) while transporting paddy on a bullock cart

The appellants, armed with swords, a sabal (iron rod), and lathis, assaulted the informant over a property dispute

Medical evidence from P.W.-9 revealed sharp cut wounds on the scalp and multiple bruises, initially termed "simple" but later described as "dangerous to life" during cross-examination

The trial court convicted Appellants 1-4 under Sections 147 and 323 IPC; Appellant 5 under Sections 148 and 307 IPC; and Appellant 6 under Sections 148, 307, and 379 IPC

During the appeal, Appellant 5 died, and his appeal abated

The parties filed a joint compromise petition (I.A. No. 13721/2024), stating they had settled the dispute and were living peacefully as relatives

1. Whether a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC can be set aside or compounded based on a compromise between the parties.

2. Whether a compromise in a non-compoundable offense serves as a valid ground for the modification of the quantum of sentence.

The Court applied the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifically Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 379 (theft)

It held that Section 307 is a non-compoundable offense under the Code of Criminal Procedure

Relying on the Supreme Court precedents in Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) and Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. (2008), the Court established that while non-compoundable offenses cannot be compounded, a settlement between parties is a relevant circumstance for determining the sentence

The Court found no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, noting that eye-witness testimonies (P.W. 2, 3, 5, and 7) and the doctor's report (P.W. 9) sufficiently proved the occurrence

However, the Court observed that the dispute was rooted in a civil matter that had since been resolved in favor of the accused

Regarding Appellant 6, the Court noted a discrepancy: the FIR alleged a sabal strike to the chest, yet the medical report showed no chest injury

Considering the familial relationship between the parties, the passage of 28 years since the incident, and the joint compromise, the Court determined that maintaining the original rigorous imprisonment would not serve the ends of justice

It concluded that while the conviction must be sustained to uphold the law for non-compoundable offenses, the sentence could be modified to the period already undergone or a fine

The sentence for Appellants 1-4 was modified to the fine amount already deposited

The sentence for Appellant 6 was modified to the period already undergone (approximately 14 days) and the fine imposed by the trial court

The appeal was disposed of, and the joint compromise petition was closed