Reduction of sentence to period undergone in non-compoundable offences based on post-conviction compromise.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, for offences under Sections 148, 323/149, 307/149, and 506(2) of the IPC, and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.

He was sentenced to terms including ten years rigorous imprisonment for the Section 307 conviction.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the complainant filed an application for compounding the offences based on a mutual compromise.

The Principal Registrar verified the compromise, noting that while a settlement was reached, several of the convicted offences are legally non-compoundable.

The appellant sought a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone (approximately six months) based on this compromise.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 148, 307, 323, 506(2) IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether a court can reduce the substantive sentence of a non-compoundable offence on the basis of a compromise entered into between the accused and the victim.

The court primarily applied Section 307 (Attempt to murder) and Section 149 of the IPC, alongside Section 320 of the CrPC regarding compounding of offences.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) to establish that under Section 482/inherent powers, certain non-compoundable offences of a personal nature (like Section 307) may be settled to secure justice.

Furthermore, it applied the principles from Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. (2009) and Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala (2017), which hold that while statutory non-compoundable offences cannot be formally compounded, a compromise is a relevant mitigating factor for reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

The Court first reviewed the trial record, noting that the testimonies of the injured witnesses, Anil Kevat (PW-2) and Dilip (PW-1), coupled with medical evidence, sufficiently proved the appellant's guilt, thus affirming the righteousness of the conviction.

Turning to the sentence, the Court observed that although Section 307 and the Arms Act are non-compoundable under Section 320 CrPC, the parties are now residing in the same society with peace and mutual consent.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court reasoned that the criminal delivery system must balance deterrence with rehabilitation and the restoration of social relations.

It determined that because the incident occurred in 2022 and a genuine compromise exists, no fruitful purpose would be served by further incarceration.

However, it modified the sentence by reducing it to the period already undergone (approx. six months) while maintaining the fine amounts imposed by the trial court. The appeal was disposed of with directions to discharge the bail bonds and send a copy of the order to the trial court for compliance.