[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.461 OF 2006 Sanjay Dattoba Donhe ] AGe 33 years, Occ: Driver ] Residing at Pargaon, ] Tal.Daund, Dist.Pune ] (Presently in Yarwada Jail) ]..Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra ] Through Yawant Police St. ] Tal.Daund Dist.Pune ]..Respondents ... Mr.Prakash Naik, Advocate for Appellant Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant-original accused has been convicted under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC by judgment and order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2002. For the offence under Section 307 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to RI for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/- i/d S.I. for six months. For the offence under Section 324 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to RI for one year and fine of [-2-] Rs.1000/- in default SI for six months. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-original accused, learned APP for the State and Shri.Jitendra Haribhau Tambe who is the original complainant in the said case. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC based on the evidence of present complainant. 3. The complainant who is present in person has stated that he has settled the matter with the accused and they are residing amicably and peacefully in the village. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit wherein he has stated that he does not wish to pursue the prosecution case and leniency may be shown to the appellant by releasing him. The said affidavit is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. He has further stated that the incident is of the year 2002 and sufficient period has passed and due to intervention of the senior members of the family and other respectable persons, he is of the opinion that there should be harmony between both families by putting an end to the dispute. Hence, he has [-3-] prayed that conviction of the appellant be set aside and the appellant be released. 4. However, it is seen that the appellant- accused has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC which is a non-compoundable offence, hence, I cannot acquit him on the basis of the said compromise. However, useful reference may be made to the case reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC Page 631 Salim and 1995 Supp (4) SCC Page 631 Salim and 1995 Supp (4) SCC Page 631 Salim and others Vs. State of M.P., others Vs. State of M.P., others Vs. State of M.P., wherein similar facts arose. In the said case, the appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Apex Court has observed thus: . "We cannot acquit the accused persons on the basis of compromise. However, as held by this Court in Ram Pujan and other Vs. State of U.P. the fact that they have compromised the matter and have patched up their differences and the fact that since then they have been living together happily, has relevance so far as the question of sentence is concerned". [-4-] 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court after having been satisfied of genuineness of the compromise allowed the appeal and directed that the sentence should be altered to that already undergone. 6. So also in the case of Sanjit Datta Vs. State Sanjit Datta Vs. State Sanjit Datta Vs. State of Tripura and another; (2007) 3 Supreme Court of Tripura and another; (2007) 3 Supreme Court of Tripura and another; (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 172, Cases (Cri.) 172, Cases (Cri.) 172, the parties have prayed for compounding of the offence under Section 457 of IPC. The Supreme Court observed that Section 457 of IPC is non-compoundable, however, if the offence is non-compoundable, while awarding sentence, the Court can take into consideration the effect of compounding. Hence, in the said case, the period of imprisonment was reduced to three months which was the period already undergone by the accused. 7. In the present case, I have ascertained from the complainant that the complainant has voluntarily decided to settle the matter. The appellant has already undergone 2 years and 11 months of imprisonment. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to reduce the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant. [-5-] 8. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC and fine is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment under Section 324 of IPC is also maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Both the sentences under Sections 324 and 307 of IPC shall run concurrently. It is stated that the fine amount is already deposited by the appellant. In this view of the matter, the appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 9. Appeal is partly allowed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]