Compromise in non-compoundable Section 307 IPC cases justifies reduction of sentence to period already undergone.

The appellants, Lakhanlal and Monu Kanojia, were convicted by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, on 03.02.2021 for an offense under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) of the IPC.

On 05.05.2016, following a dispute over borrowed construction materials, the appellants allegedly assaulted the complainant and his father, Lalsingh Kanojia, with a wooden plank, causing a fracture in Lalsingh's head.

The Trial Court sentenced them to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise, moving applications under Section 359 of the BNSS, 2023 for compounding.

The appellants had served approximately 9 months of their sentence at the time of the hearing.

1. Whether an offense under Section 307 of the IPC, being non-compoundable, can be compounded on the basis of a settlement between parties.

2. Whether the factum of compromise between the parties can be considered as a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone.

The court applied Section 307 of the IPC regarding attempt to murder and Section 320 of the Cr.PC (analogous to provisions in the BNSS) regarding the non-compoundability of serious offenses.

It relied on the precedent of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) to establish that offenses of a personal nature, even under Section 307, may be subject to settlement to secure justice.

Further, relying on Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala, the court applied the principle that while a non-compoundable offense cannot be legally compounded, a compromise is a relevant circumstance for the court to exercise discretion in reducing the substantive sentence.

The High Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the prosecution's case was well-supported by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence.

However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the parties reside in the same society and have reached an amicable settlement of their own free will and volition.

The court reasoned that since there were no criminal antecedents and the parties wished to live in peace, further incarceration would serve no fruitful purpose.

Applying the "combination of factors" approach from Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that proportionality and rehabilitation were better served by restoring family relations through sentence modification rather than strictly adhering to the original term.

The jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone (approx. 9 months), and the fine was enhanced from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 7,000 each.

The court ordered the entire fine amount to be paid to the injured party as compensation under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.

The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith, subject to the payment of the enhanced fine within 30 days.