Non-compoundable sentence may be reduced to period already undergone based on genuine post-conviction compromise.

On August 21, 2013, the appellants (Ramji, Ram Singh, and Mangal Jhariya) intercepted the complainant Rajkumar and others due to previous enmity. The appellants assaulted the victims with an axe, sword, and spear, causing various injuries.

The Trial Court convicted Appellants 1 and 2 under Sections 326 and 324/34 IPC, and Appellant 3 under Sections 326/34 and 324 IPC, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and filed applications for compounding the offences.

The Registrar (Judicial-II) verified that the settlement was voluntary.

1. Whether offences under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC.

2. Whether a compromise entered into between the parties in a non-compoundable case can be considered as a mitigating factor to reduce the quantum of sentence.

The Court applied Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting that Sections 324 and 326 IPC are non-compoundable.

The Court relied on the precedent in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) regarding the quashing of proceedings for personal-nature offences.

Applied Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2009 SC 675] and Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala [AIR 2017 SC 1745], which establish that while a court cannot ignore statutory bars on compounding, a compromise is a relevant circumstance for reducing the substantive sentence.

The Court also considered the sentencing principles of proportionality and rehabilitation from Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court affirmed the conviction, finding the Trial Court’s Marshalling of eye-witness and medical evidence sound.

The Court noted that the appellants and complainants reside in the same society and have lived peacefully for years since the incident.

While Section 320 CrPC prohibits the legal compounding of Section 326 IPC, the Court reasoned that the "ends of justice" and the need to restore relations between families justify using the compromise as a mitigating factor.

Since the appellants had no prior criminal antecedents and had already served a small portion of their sentence (20 days), the Court determined that a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone, coupled with an increased fine, was appropriate.

The substantive jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and the fine was enhanced from Rs. 500 to Rs. 2,500 each to be deposited with the Trial Court; the appellants' bail bonds were discharged.