Modification of Sentence to Period Already Undergone Based on Post-Conviction Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court on 11.12.2013 for an incident occurring on 20.10.2011 where they assaulted the complainant, Mersingh, and his son, Indrajeet, with an axe and sticks following a dispute over a tractor stuck in a drain.

Rohit was convicted under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC; Rahul and Chater Singh were convicted under Sections 324/34 and 326/34 of the IPC.

They were sentenced to maximum periods of three years R.I.

During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Chater Singh died, leading to the abatement of his appeal.

The remaining appellants and the victims filed applications for compounding the offences based on an amicable settlement.

1. Whether the appeal regarding Appellant No. 3 stands abated due to his demise during the pendency of the proceedings

2. Whether the conviction under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC can be maintained while modifying the sentence based on a compromise between the parties, given that such offences are non-compoundable

Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the right of appeal against conviction.

Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the abatement of appeals.

While Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. governs the compounding of offences, the court noted that Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC are non-compoundable.

Utilization of discretion to consider the fact of a compromise as a mitigating factor in sentencing, alongside Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. for set-off of period of detention.

Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. was applied to award the fine as compensation to the victims.

The Court first noted that Chater Singh's appeal abated upon his death.

Regarding Rohit and Rahul, the Court upheld the Trial Court's findings on conviction after reviewing the evidence and noting that the appellants did not press the appeal on merits.

In analyzing the sentence, the Court observed that the appellants were young (19 and 21 years) at the time of the incident, had faced the trial's agony for 15 years, and had already served 30 days in custody.

Crucially, the Registrar (Judicial-II) verified that the parties had entered into a voluntary compromise.

Although the law does not permit compounding of these specific IPC sections, the Court determined that the interests of justice would be served by reducing the jail term to the period already undergone while significantly increasing the fine amount to be paid as compensation to the victims.

For Rohit and Rahul, the Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 324, 326, 324/34, and 326/34 of the IPC but modified the sentence: the jail term was reduced to the period already undergone (30 days), and the fine was enhanced to Rs. 2,000 for Section 324/34 and Rs. 2,500 for Section 326/34 per appellant.

The entire fine amount was ordered to be paid to the victims as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the appeal was disposed of with directions for the appellants to deposit the fine within 60 days or serve the original sentence.