Post-conviction compromise may reduce sentences for non-compoundable offences without setting aside convictions.

On 16 April 2010, following an altercation involving abuse by the son of Nehnaram, Kamalsingh and five others allegedly came armed with a farsa, sword and lathis and assaulted Rakesh Kushwah and Rakesh Sikarwar on their heads.

The complainant Kamla Bai and Hari Kushwah were also allegedly injured when they intervened; stones were pelted and firing was made in the air.

An FIR was registered under Sections 307, 336, 147, 148 and 149 IPC, followed by investigation and committal to the Sessions Court.

After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior convicted the appellants under Sections 307/149, 324/149 on two counts, 323/149, 147 and 148 IPC and imposed custodial sentences and fines.

During the appeal, the parties entered into a voluntary compromise, which was verified by the Principal Registrar; however, the offences were non-compoundable.

The appellants did not challenge their convictions and sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, relying on the compromise, the existence of a cross-case, familial relations and the long pendency of the litigation.

Whether the appellants’ convictions under Sections 307/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 IPC were sustainable on the evidence on record.

Whether a compromise between the parties could be accepted or otherwise taken into account where the offences were non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.

Whether, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offences, the custodial sentence could be reduced to the period already undergone on account of the compromise and other mitigating circumstances.

The Court applied Section 320 CrPC, holding that offences under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 and 307/149 IPC could not be formally compounded because they were non-compoundable.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (6) SCC 466, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court recognised that compromise may, in appropriate cases, be relevant to proceedings involving offences of a predominantly personal nature, though it cannot override statutory compounding provisions.

Under Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 675, compromise is a relevant circumstance in determining substantive sentence even where compounding is impermissible.

Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala, AIR 2017 SC 1745, supports reduction of sentence on the basis of compromise while maintaining conviction.

The Court further relied on Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC), which requires sentencing to consider proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation and the compromise, while clarifying that compromise cannot be the sole basis for reduction.

The High Court independently examined the conviction despite the appellants’ limited challenge to sentence. It found that the testimony of the complainant and injured eyewitnesses was corroborated by medical and documentary evidence, and therefore affirmed the trial court’s findings of guilt.

The Court declined to compound or quash the offences because the relevant IPC offences were non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC.

Nevertheless, the verified compromise was treated as a mitigating sentencing circumstance.

The parties were related, had been living peacefully for several years, had also compromised a cross-case, and no criminal antecedents of the appellants were shown.

Considering these factors, the period already undergone, and the prolonged pendency of the case, the Court concluded that further incarceration would serve no meaningful purpose, while preserving the convictions and enhancing the fine under Section 307/149 IPC.

The appellants’ convictions under Sections 307/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 IPC were affirmed.

Their imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, but the fine under Section 307/149 IPC was enhanced from ₹2,000 to ₹5,000, with adjustment for any amount already deposited.

The appellants were directed to deposit the entire fine within 30 days of release, failing which they would surrender to serve the remaining sentence with the original default stipulations.

Their bail bonds were ordered to be discharged, and the trial court was directed to ensure compliance.