Sentencing may be reduced to period undergone considering compromise between parties despite non-compoundable nature of offence.

On December 7, 2024, at approximately 11:30 PM, the victims, Sahil Singh Rajput and Aman Singh Thakur, were warming themselves by a fire near the Raigarh Post Office.

The appellants, arriving in a Maruti Swift Dzire, assaulted the victims with rods and sticks with the intent to kill, causing grievous injuries, including a broken jaw and tooth for Sahil Singh.

The Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Raigarh) convicted the appellants 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 victims and appellants filed applications (I.A. Nos. 3/2026 & 4/2026) seeking to compound the offences based on a voluntary compromise.

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

2. Whether the substantive sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants in light of the compromise and the mitigating circumstances.

The Court applied Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the maintainability of the criminal appeal.

It relied on the principle that non-compoundable offences cannot be formally compounded under Section 320 of the CrPC (now BNSS) if they involve serious crimes against society.

However, following the precedents in *Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh* [AIR 2009 SC 675], *Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala* [AIR 2017 SC 1745], and *Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra* [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC)], the Court held that while a conviction may be maintained, a compromise between parties is a relevant factor for the Court to exercise its discretion in reducing the quantum of sentence.

The Court observed that the offence involved a violent assault with weapons, leading to serious injuries, and thus refused to permit the formal compounding of the case, noting that "attempt to murder is not a common/simple crime".

However, the Court turned its focus to the sentencing aspect, noting that the appellants were young (aged 20-25 years) and had already served significant prison time: Rajvir (9 months 10 days), Jasdev (6 months 17 days), and Raj Rathi (6 months 28 days).

Applying the "proportionality and rehabilitation" factors from *Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad*, the Court reasoned that since the victims appeared personally and expressed a desire to end the bitterness through a voluntary settlement, further incarceration served no judicial purpose.

While it upheld the conviction of the appellants, it modified the sentence to the period already undergone in detention.

The fines imposed by the Trial Court were maintained; however, the Court directed that upon deposition, the fine amount be distributed equally between the victims, Sahil Singh Rajput and Aman Singh Thakur, as compensation.

The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellants unless required in any other case.