1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2009 1. Sitaram s/o Narayan Mate, Aged 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, 2. Vilas s/o Narayan Mate, Aged 38 years, Occupation Service, 3. Ganesh s/o Sitaram Mate, Aged 24 years, Occupation Business, 4. Ankush s/o Sitaram Mate, Aged 19 years, Occupation Agriculture, 5. Lahu s/o Sitaram Mate, Aged 19 years, Occupation Business, 6. Sunil s/o Vilas Mate, Aged 18 years, Occupation Agriculture, All Resident of Nandeda, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad Appellants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the appellants Mr. T.S. Lodhe, APP for the respondent / State WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1532 OF 2009 1. Sitaram s/o Narayan Mate, Aged 50 years, Occupation Agriculture, 2. Vilas s/o Narayan Mate, Aged 38 years, Occupation Service, 3. Ganesh s/o Sitaram Mate, Aged 24 years, Occupation Business, 4. Ankush s/o Sitaram Mate, Appellants 2 Aged 19 years, Occupation Agriculture, 5. Lahu s/o Sitaram Mate, Aged 19 years, Occupation Business, 6. Sunil s/o Vilas Mate, Aged 18 years, Occupation Agriculture, All Resident of Nandeda, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Ashok s/o Gangadhar Jadhav, Aged 45 years, Occupation Agriculture, 3. Sunil s/o Ashok Jadhav, Aged 23 years, Occupation Agriculture, 4. Balchand s/o Gangadhar Jadhav, Aged 39 years, Occupation Agriculture, 5. Sanjay s/o Ashok Jadhav, Aged 26 years, Occupation Agriculture, Respondents No. 2 to 5 are resident of Nandeda, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad Respondents Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the appellants Mr. T.S. Lodhe, APP for the respondent No.1/ State Mr. M.G. Deokate, Adv h/f Mr. S.D. Tambad, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 5 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellants are challenging the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 3, Aurangabad, dated 9th February, 2009, convicting them for offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 149 of the IPC, under 3 Section 148 read with Section 149 of the IPC, under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and under Section 295 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They have been sentenced to suffer various terms of imprisonments and were also sentenced to pay certain fine under each head, mentioned above. The longest substantive sentence awarded to them is for the period of four years under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. During pendency of the appeal, the parties, viz; the appellants / accused on one side and on the other side the complainant and his relatives who sustained injuries and who are eye witnesses to the incident, settled their dispute amicably. They filed terms of compromise before this Court. The terms were duly verified by this Court. In view of the fact that offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal code alone is compoundable, this Court recorded acquittal of the appellants on 20th November, 2009. 3. The appeal is now pending for deciding, as to whether as per the terms of the compromise, the Court should reduce the substantive sentences awarded to the appellants to the period which they have already undergone. In order to justify this course of action, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants mentioned that the parties of this case are residing in one village and they have to live there peacefully and amicably. He also mentioned that since they belong to different castes, the compromise would ensure the communal harmony. In addition to this, the learned Advocate placed reliance on a Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2009 All MR (Cri) 2486 (S.C.). In this case, the Supreme Court was examining as to whether in an offence, which is 4 not compoundable within scope of Section 320 of Cr. P.C., the Court would be able to reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction. The offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC was the offence for which the accused was convicted in that case. The Supreme Court took notice of the fact that the accused and the victim had settled the case. The Supreme Court while accepting the suggestion of the parties, to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, observed as under : “....the short point which ultimately arose during the hearing is whether the offence under Section 304-A could at all be compounded since the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 320, IPC. 5. The aforesaid question has troubled this Court on different occasions, not only in connection with compounding of offences punishable under the criminal justice system, but also in respect of civil matters, and in respect of matrimonial matters in particular, where the Court had to strike a balance between the rigidity of the law and doing substantial justice to the parties in order to meet certain unusual situations, this Court has from time to time taken recourse to innovations and the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution, in order to give a quietus to a litigation demanding a pragmatic solution. It has also been consistently held by this Court that when an offence did not come within the ambit of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code but the proceedings taken on the basis thereof deserved to be terminated, a sentence could always be reduced while maintaining the conviction and in most cases the sentence was reduced to the period of the sentence 5 already undergone. In other cases, where circumstances so warranted, even the sentence was altered which at times brought the proceedings within the scope of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code and the offence was allowed to be compounded.” Even in this case, the circumstances would justify a similar course of action. Besides, the powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure would allow this Court to take such step. I have already mentioned the reasons as to why such course would be advisable in this particular case, because the parties are residing in one village and are required to interact in future, and therefore, amiable atmosphere between them is required. The learned Single Judge of this Court also took similar view of a case which was probably of similar gravity and took a similar step. When the parties recorded compromise in a case where the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, which is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. In this case also, offences punishable under Sections 3 (i) (x) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Section 148, 324 of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and yet the parties have recorded a compromise, which is verified by this Court. In view of this, it would be proper to allow the Criminal Application No. 1532 of 2009. Thus, it stands allowed. 4. It is said that the appellants No. 1 to 5 had undergone 30 days in custody during pendency of the investigation and the appellant No. 6 has undergone for a period of 16 days when he was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge before he was released on bail. In view of this, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 3 (i) (x) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Sections 148, 324 and 295 of the Indian Penal 6 Code, the substantive sentences awarded to them under each Section stand reduced to the period already undergone. Rest of the impugned Judgment and award shall remain undisturbed. Bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/criapl/99/09/51010/ok