1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Appeal No.450 of 2009 with Criminal Application No.1175 of 2009 Prabhakar Shankar Mokal & ors. ... Appellants (Org.Accused Nos.1,2,3 & 5) v/s. The State of Mah. Through Panvel Police Station, Panvel. ... Respondents (Orig.Complainants) Mr.Rahul Thakur for Appellants. Mr.Pravin V. Desai for original Complainant. Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for State. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 11th November 2009 P.C. : 1.The Appeal is against the conviction. The conviction is under Section 307 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The sentence awarded is of 5 years. It is the case of the Appellants (original accused) that only the simple injuries are caused and because the sword was used the sentence is so awarded. 2.The previous Bail Application was moved. The sentence was not suspended. The Appellants Advocate argues that that was because of the use of the sword. 2 3.Parties have thereafter sought to compound these non- compoundable offences. The Respondents (original complainants) have filed an Affidavit stating that they were living in the same locality and they would rather have peace. 4.I have been shown a number of judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court, allowing non-compoundable offences to be compounded and acquitting the accused thereunder. Most of these judgments are under Sections 326 and 324 of the IPC. The observations of these judgments are that the occurrence took place on a trivial issue. The parties settled the dispute. After awarding the sentence already undergone, some cases have been disposed of. The judgment in the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty & anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases 238, relates to offences under Sections 307, 326 and 323. In that case, it was observed that it would be hazardous to uphold the conviction under Section 307. The conviction for the period already undergone was granted and a fine was imposed. The injured was to be paid the specified amount from the fine imposed. The said judgment was followed in the case of Bankat & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343. Since the dispute was settled between the parties, the sentence imposed was reduced to the period already undergone and a further 3 fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on each of the accused. Direction for undergoing further imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine was passed. From the fine of Rs.5,000/-, a sum of Rs.4,000/- was directed to be given to the injured as compensation. 5.In this Application, the Appellants have applied for 3 reliefs. Prayer (a) is for suspension of the sentence. That has been previously considered on merits. The sentence has not been suspended. Mere entering into a settlement is not the reason for suspending a sentence passed by the Court on merits. 6.Prayer (b) is for release of the Appellants on bail. This prayer denotes that because of the settlement the Appellants desire their liberty. However, releasing the Appellants on bail simpliciter would mean that the Appeal remains on board for hearing. Statistics of the Court would show that Appeal. The Appeal would come on board after a number of years. Neither the complainant nor the accused would then be interested in attending the Court to inform the Court of the then position. The Court would be required to issue notices and perhaps even warrants. This needless procedure would require to be followed until the Court would be informed of the settlement or would have to ascertain that upon going through the records. There is no 4 reason for the Appellants to be granted their liberty and the Respondents to accede to that liberty, if the entire Appeal itself is not disposed of, as has been done in the Supreme Court judgments. 7.This brings us to prayer (c) which is for reduction of conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 of the IPC and allowing the same to be compounded. 8.Indeed, in this case, the injuries are not shown to be so grevious that if left untreated, they would have resulted in death. The parties have seen reason thereafter. It is important for the parties who live in the same locality as neighbours to maintain peace. Since that reason has dawned and the parties have filed an Affidavit in that behalf, prayer (c) itself can be considered so that the Appeal itself comes to an end. 9.Considering the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the issue of settlement of non-compoundable cases also, and seeing the aforesaid facts, the offence, which has thus far been prosecuted, is allowed to be compounded. The Appellants are convicted of the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and are awarded sentence already undergone by them. 10.The Appellants shall pay a further fine of Rs.10,000/- 5 each which shall be forfeited to the State for having prosecuted the trial on behalf of the society. 11.The Appeal is accordingly disposed of and hence, the Appellants shall now be released from jail. 12.Since the disposal of the main Appeal, nothing survives in Criminal Application No.1175 of 2009 and the same is disposed as infructuous. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)