1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE. SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE U.C.MAHESHWARI, J. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.591/2011 Lakhan Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ______________________________________________________________ Shri Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Deepak Rawal, Govt. Advocate for the respondent. O R D E R(Oral) (Passed on this day of November 28, 2011) Per: U.C.Maheswari, J. 1. The applicants/accused have directed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.06.2011, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Appeal No.75/2011 upholding the judgment dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tonk-Khurd, district Dewas convicting and sentencing to each of the applicant for offence under Section 352 and 435 of the IPC, with fine of Rs.200/- in the earlier Section, while one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- in the later Section. In default of depositing the fine amount, 5 days simple imprisonment in the first count, while one month simple imprisonment in the later count has been awarded. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.4.2004, complainant Gangabai w/o Kishore Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station Peepalrawa, contending that his chaff was lying in a bullock cart, kept in her courtyard. On the date of incident, the applicants Lakhan, Moolchand and Omprakash came there and by abusing her with filthy languages asked why she has 2 kept such chaff in their courtyard. On replying by the complainant that the same is in her possession for last 20 years and how it has become of the applicants, on which applicant no.1 tried to give her a blow of stick, but she ran away. On the way, her husband and one Dilip came and rescued her. On which after giving some criminal intimidation to kill the complainant, the applicants set fire on the aforesaid chaff kept in the bullock cart. On such report, an offence under Sections 294,352,506,435 and 34 of IPC was registered, after carrying out the investigation and on completion of the investigation, the applicants were charge sheeted for offence under Sections 294, 352, 435 and 506-II of the IPC. After framing the charge of such Sections, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, the applicants were acquitted by the trial Court from the charge of Sections 506-II and 294 of the IPC, while convicting under Sections 352 and 435 of IPC each of them were sentenced as stated above. On filing the appeal, same was dismissed, on which the applicants have come to this Court with this revision. 3. Applicants' counsel after taking me through the record of the Courts below alongwith the impugned judgment, and also the averments of the applications I.A.No.5140/2011 and I.A.No.5141/2011 filed with the joint signatures of the applicants as well as the complainant Gangabai for permission to compound the offence and also to place their compromise on record, without assailing the conviction of the applicants under the aforesaid Sections has made his limited submission to consider the matter taking into consideration the factum of aforesaid compromise of the parties. In continuation, he said that under the existing legal position, the offence of Section 352 of IPC is made compoundable with permission of the Court, while the offence under Section 435 of IPC is not made compoundable in view of the provision under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. In such premises, he fairly submitted that the applicants could be sentenced under such Section 3 upto the period for which they have already undergone between 3.06.2011 to 9.06.2011 and prayed to allow this revision accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Shri Rawal, learned Government Advocate by justifying the impugned judgment as well as the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below said that the same being based upon proper appreciation of the evidence, and is in conformity with law, does not require any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court . In continuation he said that looking to the nature of the alleged incident and the manner in which it was committed by the applicants with a women victim, there is no scope to take a lenient view to reduce the jail sentence of the applicants, by taking into consideration the compromise of the parties and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 5. Having heard the learned counsel at length and keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone into the record of both the Courts below alongwith the aforesaid I.As for compromise filed in the present revision as well as the impugned judgments. 6. After going through both the judgments, I have not found any perversity or infirmity in appreciation of the evidence by any of the Courts below in holding guilty the applicants for offence under Sections 352 and 435 of the IPC. As such, I have not found any material circumstances on which by interfering in the findings of the Courts below, the applicants, be extended the benefit of acquittal. So in such premises, the findings of the Courts below holding conviction under the aforesaid Sections is hereby affirmed. 7. In view of the provision of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., compromise application filed by the parties in a compoundable offence with permission or without permission of the Court could be considered and may be allowed, at any stage of the case, either in the trial Court, in appeal or in the revision also. So, in such premises, I am of the view that the compromise application 4 could be considered and should be considered before proceeding further and to give the findings on the merits in the matter. It is also apparent fact on record that on earlier occasion, the averments of the applications were gone into by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.09.2011 and it was stated in the order sheet that the complainant Gangabai did not have any objection if the applicant/accused persons are let off by recording the compromise. In such directions, it is apparent that the compromise had been filed voluntarily and without any coercion and undue influence from any source. Therefore, in the available circumstances, same appears to be bonafide and genuine, but the same could be allowed till the offence under Section 352 of IPC which is made compoundable with permission of the Court, pursuant to allowing the aforesaid applications the parties are permitted to compound the offence under Section 352, and pursuant to it the compromise is also allowed in such offence. 8. Consequently, as per provision of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the applicants are acquitted from the charge of Section 352 of IPC. 9. As compromise with respect to the offence under Section 435 IPC being not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. could not be considered and allowed by the Court, but I am of the considered view that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pujan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2418 that while dealing with the matter relating to non compoundable offence, like 326 of IPC., the Court may take the factum of compromise, which had taken place between the parties, for adopting a lenient view for reducing the jail sentence. Accordingly, taking into consideration the compromise, the sentence of the accused like the applicants in the matter of non- compoundable offence could be reduced upto the period for which they have already undergone. Subject to this, the compromise application of the parties is not being allowed to the extent of Section 435 of IPC for 5 permitting them to compound the offence. 10. Coming to consider the arguments advanced for reducing the jail sentence of the applicants under Section 435 of IPC is concerned, I have found substance in it. It is apparent fact that the parties have entered into compromise in which out of the alleged offence from offence of Section 352 of IPC they have been permitted to compound the same and pursuant to that their compromise has been accepted as stated above. Besides this applicants appears to be the first offender and as per record they do not have any earlier criminal past and antecedents. Apart this, they have already suffered near about 7 days in the custody of the jail between 03.06.2011 the date of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court to 09.06.2011 the date of order passed by this Court for suspension of their jail sentence. 11. Considering all these circumstances, even after affirming the conviction of the applicants under Section 435 of IPC, I deem fit to reduce their jail sentence under such Section upto the aforesaid period suffered by them by maintaining the amount of fine, as imposed by the Court below. 12. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings on the compromise applications, the applicants are acquitted from the charge of Section 352 of IPC. Pursuant to it, the jail sentence as well as the fine amount awarded under the aforesaid Section is hereby set aside, while affirming the findings of the impugned judgment convicting the applicants under Section 435 of IPC by allowing this revision in part, their jail sentence under such Section 435 of IPC is reduced from one year to the aforesaid period of 7 days for which they have already undergone, by maintaining the amount of fine imposed by the Court below alongwith the sentence awarded by such Court in default of depositing the fine. 13. Till the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is hereby modified, while the remaining findings of the same are hereby 6 affirmed. The bail bonds are hereby discharged. Revision is allowed in part as indicated above. C.C. as per rules. ( U.C.MAHESHWARI) JUDGE RJ/