[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.428 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLN.NO. 435 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO. 428 OF 2008 Sajjid Jabbar Khan ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Vikas Shivalkar advocate for Applicant Ms.A.A.Mane A.P.P. for the State Mr.Pankaj Deokar Adv. for Respondent no.2 ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.474 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO. 428 OF 2008 Shamina Sajid Khan ..Applicant Vs. Sajid Jabbar Khan and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.Pankaj Deokar Adv. for Applicant Ms.A.A.Mane APP for State Mr.Vikas Shivalkar Adv. for Respondent no.1 .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2008 DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2008 DATE : NOVEMBER 14, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and [-2-] the learned APP for the State. 2. Criminal Revision Application No.428 of 2008 and Criminal Application No.435 of 2008 have been filed by the original accused. Criminal Application No.474 of 2008 has been filed in Revision Application No.428 of 2008 by the original complainant-wife of accused. 3. There was a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and his wife. During the course of quarrel, the accused assaulted his wife. FIR was registered. By judgment and order dated 26.3.2004, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune has convicted the accused under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1500/-. Being aggrieved thereby, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2004. By judgment and order dated 10.7.2008, the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge observed that in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the punishment imposed on the accused is reduced to R.I for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- which has already been paid. Being aggrieved thereby, [-3-] Revision Application No.428 of 2008 has been preferred. 4. The learned advocate for the complainant-applicant in Criminal Application No.474 of 2008 states that the complainant i.e. wife of the accused resides in the house of accused. She has no grievance against her husband and the dispute has been amicably settled. The learned advocate for the wife has stated that if the applicant i.e. her husband continues to remain jail, she would be in dire state as there is no one to look after her and to provide her food, hence, it is prayed that the applicant-accused be acquitted or in the alternative it is prayed that the period of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant-accused which is five and half months. 5. However, it is seen that the applicant- 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 [-4-] 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". 6. 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. 7. 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 [-5-] 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. Looking to the above facts and the above two decisions, I am inclined to take a similar view and to reduce the sentence. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the applicant-accused under Section 307 of IPC imposed by judgment and order dated 10.7.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 5, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2004 is maintained. However, the sentence of period of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the applicant-accused. The applicant-accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 8. Criminal Revision Application No.428 and Application No.474 of 2008 are disposed of. In view of disposal of the both these applications, Criminal Application No.435 of 2008 does not [-6-] survive and is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]