Sentencing may be reduced to period undergone based on compromise despite non-compoundable nature of the offence.

The Appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Case No. 33/2025 for an incident dated 07/12/2024.

The prosecution alleged that the Appellants, armed with rods and sticks, assaulted the complainants (Sahil Singh and Aman Singh) with the intent to kill, causing grievous injuries including a broken jaw and loss of a tooth.

The Trial Court convicted them under Sections 191(3), 109, 109 r/w 190, 115(2), and 115(2) r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, sentencing them to a maximum of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and filed applications [I.A. Nos. 3/2026 & 4/2026] seeking permission to compound the offences.

1. Whether a non-compoundable offence involving an attempt to murder can be compounded based on a compromise between the parties.

2. Whether the sentence of the Appellants can be reduced to the period already undergone in view of a voluntary settlement between the accused and the victims.

The Court applied the principles governing the compounding of non-compoundable offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 320 CrPC).

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents of *Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh* [AIR 2009 SC 675], which held that while non-compoundable offences cannot be formally compounded, a compromise is a relevant factor for sentencing.

It further cited *Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala* [AIR 2017 SC 1745] and *Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra* [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC)], which establish that Courts may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone to restore family relations and avoid bitterness, provided other mitigating factors exist.

The Court observed that the Appellants had used dangerous weapons causing "serious nature" injuries, and therefore, the request to formally compound the charge of attempt to murder was rejected as it is not a compoundable offence under the law.

However, the Court took a balanced view of the "aggravating and mitigating factors".

It noted that the Appellants were young individuals (aged 20-25 years), had family responsibilities, and the victims had appeared personally in court to confirm they were settling the matter voluntarily without any pressure.

The Court reasoned that since the Appellants had already served significant jail time—ranging from approximately 6 to 10 months—further incarceration was unnecessary for the purpose of rehabilitation and justice given the mutual settlement.

It upheld the conviction of the Appellants but modified the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

The fine amount and the default imprisonment terms stipulated by the Trial Court were maintained.

The Court further ordered that the fine amount, upon deposition, be distributed equally between the victims, Sahil Singh Rajput and Aman Singh Thakur, as compensation.

The Appellants were ordered to be released immediately unless required in any other case.