Sentence Reduced to Period Undergone in Non-Compoundable IPC Offences Based on Voluntary Post-Conviction Compromise

The appellant, Rahul Gupta, was convicted by the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 307 (Attempt to murder) and 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on January 31, 2023, the appellant threw a "petrol bomb" at his cousin, Ajay @ Babla Gupta, following a dispute over a past transaction, causing burn injuries to Ajay and his daughter.

The trial court sentenced him to 7 years R.I. and 1 year R.I. respectively.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties (who are relatives) settled the matter out of court and filed a compromise application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. read with Section 359 BNSS, 2023.

The appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction in sentence to the period already undergone (approximately 8 months) based on the settlement.

1. Whether a non-compoundable offence under Section 307 of the IPC can be compounded on the basis of a private settlement between parties

2. Whether the factum of compromise can be considered as a mitigating factor to reduce the quantum of sentence for serious offences

Section 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 359 of BNSS

Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that while statutory provisions prevent the compounding of non-compoundable offences, a compromise is a relevant circumstance for determining the substantive sentence

Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala

Murali vs. State, affirming that even in serious non-compoundable cases, an amicable settlement justifies a reduction in sentence to maintain social harmony.

The Court noted that while the Registrar (Judicial-II) verified that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion, the offences under Sections 324 and 307 are legally non-compoundable, necessitating the rejection of the formal compounding application.

The Court exercised its discretion to modify the sentence by analyzing the "exceptional circumstances" of the case: the parties are close relatives, the appellant is a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents, and he has already served over eight months in custody.

The Court reasoned that since the complainant unequivocally supported the compromise, reducing the jail term to the period already served while increasing the fine amount would serve the ends of justice and foster social harmony.

The jail sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

The Court enhanced the fine for Section 307 from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000 and for Section 324 from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 5,000, directing the total amount to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, subject to the payment of the enhanced fine within 60 days, failing which the original trial court sentence would be restored.