Voluntary settlement warrants reducing sentence to period undergone while maintaining conviction in non-compoundable offenses.

On May 14, 2023, the appellant approached the complainant, Rahul Soni, at a bus stand and demanded ₹500 for liquor.

Upon refusal, the appellant assaulted the complainant with a cutter, causing injuries to his abdomen and left arm.

Following a trial where eight prosecution witnesses were examined, the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, convicted the appellant on September 6, 2024, for offences under Sections 329 and 307 of the IPC, sentencing him to three and seven years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a voluntary compromise, which was verified by the Registrar (Judicial-II) on February 25, 2026.

The appellant, having served approximately two years and ten months in custody, did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 329 and 307 of the IPC is legally sustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether a post-conviction compromise between parties in non-compoundable offences can be considered as a mitigating factor to reduce the quantum of the substantive sentence.

The Court applied Sections 307 (Attempt to murder) and 329 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Procedurally, the appeal was governed by Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Regarding sentencing and compromise, the Court relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009), which held that while non-compoundable offences cannot be formally compounded, a compromise is a relevant circumstance for imposing a substantive sentence.

It further cited Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala (2017) and Murali vs. State (2021), which affirm that courts may reduce a sentence to the period already undergone in the interest of social harmony, even for serious non-compoundable offences, if an amicable settlement is reached.

The Court first performed an independent reappraisal of the evidence and affirmed the conviction, noting that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence and lacked perversity.

Moving to the compromise, the Court acknowledged that Sections 307 and 329 IPC are non-compoundable; however, it emphasized the court's power to modify relief in exceptional circumstances to maintain social harmony.

The Court reasoned that since the parties settled the dispute voluntarily without coercion, and the appellant had already undergone nearly three years of incarceration (from May 15, 2023, to April 2, 2026), the ends of justice would be met by reducing the jail term to the period already served while simultaneously increasing the fine to compensate the victim.

The fine for the offence under Section 329 was enhanced from ₹500 to ₹4,000, and for Section 307 from ₹1,000 to ₹7,000.

The Court directed that the total fine amount be paid as compensation to the injured party under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023.

The appellant was ordered to be released immediately, with the caveat that failure to deposit the enhanced fine within 60 days would require him to surrender and serve the original trial court sentence.