MURALI versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 201, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
201
MURALI
v.
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2021)
JANUARY 05, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.320 – Compounding of
offence under ss.307, 324 – Prosecution case was that fifteen years
ago, over a volleyball match, verbal altercation took place between
victim-injured and original accused no.3 and 5 who after sometime
cornered the victim along with the appellants and assaulted him –
Appellant-M struck the victim on his head with a hockey stick and
appellant-R tied to kill him by giving a neck blow with sharp edged
object and in the process, left hand of the victim and the thumb and
finger of his right hand got severed – Trial court held appellant-M
guilty under ss.324 and 241 IPC and appellant-R under ss.307 and
341 IPC – Appellant-M was imposed three months rigorous
imprisonment while appellant-R was sentenced to undergo five years
rigorous imprisonment – Sessions court and High Court affirmed
the order of conviction and sentence – Appellant challenged his
conviction in the instant appeal – However, through an application,
appellants sought to implead the injured-victim and get their
offences compounded based on mutual resolution and peaceful
settlement – Held: There can be no doubt that s.320 CrPC does not
encapsulate s.324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable
offences – Notwithstanding thereto, the fact of amicable settlement
can be a relevant factor for the
purpose of reduction in the quantum
of sentence – The quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants
can be reconsidered in view of the fact that at the time of incident,
the victim was in college and appellants were in early twenties –
Appellants had no other criminal antecedents, no previous enmity
and now they are married having children – Both the appellants
also served a significant portion of their sentences – In view of the
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 201
201
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising out of
subsequent events, a sympathetic view taken – Quantum of sentence
of the appellants reduced to the sentence already undergone by
them – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307 and 324.
Ram Pujan v. State of UP (1973) 2 SCC 456 ; Ishwar
Singh v. State of MP (2008) 15 SCC 667: [2008] 14
SCR 574 ; Ram Lal v. State of J&K, (1999) 2 SCC 213:
[1999] 1 SCR  230 ; Bankat v. State of Maharashtra,
(2005) 1 SCC 343 ; Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan
(2015) 11 SCC 226 ; Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala
(2015) 11 SCC 137 :  [2015] 4 SCR 563 ; Shankar v.
State of Maharashtra, (2019) 5 SCC 166 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(1973) 2 SCC 456
relied on
Para 10
[2008] 14 SCR 574
relied on
Para 10
[1999] 1 SCR 230
relied on
Para 12
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 406
relied on
Para 12
(2015) 11 SCC 226
relied on
Para 12
[2015] 4 SCR 563
relied on
Para 12
(2019) 5 SCC 166
relied on
Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No 24 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 1185 of 2013.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2021.
Jayanth Muth Raj, Raja Rajeshwaran, S. Advs., Ramakrishna
Reddy, A. Rajarajan, K. Paari Vendhan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Aditya
Chadha, T. Harish Kumar, Raghunatha Sethupathy, Ms. Hemlata Rawat,
Aayushmaan Vatsyayana, Deepak Anand, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These connected appeals have been preferred against the
judgment dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court of Madras which upheld
Murali’s (appellant in SLP (Crl) No 10813/2019) conviction under
Sections 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) with a
sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment, and Rajavelu’s
(appellant in SLP (Crl) 10814/2019) conviction under Sections 307
and 341 of IPC and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.08.2005, one Senthil
had a verbal altercation with Kumar (original accused no. 3) and
Krishnan (original accused no. 5) during a volleyball match. The injured-
victim (Sathya @ Sathiyajothi) came to the aid of his friend Senthil and
opposed both Kumar and Krishnan. Thereafter at about 2:30PM on
09.08.2005, the appellants – Rajavelu and Murali (original accused
nos. 1 and 2) along with Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan (originalaccused
nos. 3, 4 and 5) cornered the victim and assaulted him. Murali allegedly
struck the victim on his head with a hockey stick and Rajavelu tried to
kill him by giving a neck blow with a Veechu Aruval (sharp-edged object),
which was fortunately blocked by the victim. In the process, the left
hand of the victim and the thumb and finger of his right hand got severed.
The victim was able to escape and the matter was reported by his friend,
PW-1. All five persons were
arrested. It further led to registration of
Crime No. 531 of 2005 under Sections 147,148,341,352, 323, 324, 307
and 34 of the IPC.
4. Relying upon the testimony of the victim (PW-3), which was
held to be unimpeachable and stellar, the Assistant Sessions Judge -
cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, vide his judgment dated
28.01.2012 held Murali guilty of wrongfully restraining the victim and
voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. Based upon the
medical evidence and recovery of the Veechu Aruval from Rajavelu,
the trial Court further opined that the second-appellant (Rajavelu) had a
clear intention to murder the victim and that if not for the victim defending
himself, a fatal injury would have been caused to his neck and he would
have died instantaneously. Consequently, a concurrent sentence of three
months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and one-month
MURALI v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC was imposed on Murali,
and Rajavelu was awarded five years’ rigorous imprisonment under
Section 307 IPC and another one month rigorous imprisonment under
Section 341 IPC.  Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan were acquitted as there
was no specific allegation by the victim and no weapon or injury had
been attributed to them by the prosecution.
5. The convict-appellants challenged the afore-stated judgment
before two forums, both of which unanimously upheld their conviction.
The Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge dismissed the first appeal
through an order dated 20.08.2013 and their criminal revision petition
before the High Court also met with the same fate vide an order dated
01.11.2018.
6. Unsatisfied still, the appellants have approached this Court
seeking special leave to appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of
their conviction. However, through an application filed on 22.11.2019,
they have sought to implead the injured-victim and get their offences
compounded based on mutual resolution and peaceful settlement between
the parties. This Court, nevertheless, issued limited notice only on the
quantum of sentence.
7. The records of the case elicit that the findings of all three
preceding forums are concurrent and without fault. Not only have the
appellants been unable to mount an effective challenge founded upon a
question of law, their learned Counsels, given the subsequent
events and
change in circumstances, have very fairly restricted their prayer qua
reduction of sentence only.
8. A perusal of the applications for impleadment and compounding
makes it clear that the parties have on the advice of their elders entered
into an amicable settlement. The appellants have admitted their fault,
taken responsibility for their actions, and have maturely sought forgiveness
from the victim. In turn, the victim has benevolently acknowledged the
apology, and considering the young age of the appellants at the time of
the incident, has forgiven the appellants and settled the dispute. Learned
Counsel for the victim-applicant has reiterated the same stance during
oral hearings also.
9. There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”) does not encapsulate Section 324 and
307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences. Given the unequivocal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
205
language of Section 320(9) CrPC which explicitly prohibits any
compounding except as permitted under the said provision, it would not
be possible to compound the appellants’ offences.
10. Notwithstanding thereto, it appears to us that the fact of
amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction
in the quantum of sentence. In somewhat similar circumstances where
the parties decided to forget their past and live amicably, this Court in
Ram Pujan v. State of UP[(1973) 2 SCC 456], held as follows:
“6. The only question with which we are concerned, as
mentioned earlier, is about the sentence. In this respect we
find that an application for compromise on behalf of the
injured prosecution witnesses and the appellants was filed
before the High Court. It was stated in the application that
the appellants and the injured persons, who belong to one
family, had amicably settled their dispute and wanted to live
in peace. The High Court thereupon referred the matter to
the trial court for verification of the compromise. After the
compromise was got verified, the High Court passed an order
stating that as the offence under Section 326 of the Penal
Code, 1860 was non-compoundable, permission to compound
the offence could not be granted. The High Court all the same
reduced the sentence for the offence under Section 326 read
with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 from four years to
two years.
7. The appellants during the pendency of the appeal were
not released on bail and are stated to have already undergone
a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of more
than four months. As the parties who belong to one family
have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not necessary
to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period. The major
offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no
doubt non-compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be
taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence.
It would, in our opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence
of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the
period already undergone provided each of the appellants
pays a fine of Rs 1500 in addition to the period of
imprisonment already undergone for the offence under
MURALI v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
Section 326 read with Section 34 of the of the Penal Code,
1860. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants
shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of
one year for the offence under Section 326 read with Section
34 of the of the Penal Code, 1860. Out of the fine, if realised,
Rs 2000 should be paid to Ram Sewak and Rs 2000 to Ram
Samujh as compensation. We order accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by this
Court including in Ishwar Singh v. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC
667],laying down that:
“13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 9 SCC 255 :
(2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 561] , Murugesan v. Ganapathy
Velar [(2001) 10 SCC 504 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1032]
and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [(2008) 15 SCC 671 : JT (1988)
3 SC 36 (1)] this Court, while taking into account the fact of
compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed
on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the
offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that
in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan [1990 Supp SCC 681
: 1991 SCC (Cri) 159 : AIR 1988 SC 2111] such offence was
ordered to be compounded.
14. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to
order compounding of an offence not compoundable under
the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In
our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant deserves
consideration that while
imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise
between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which
the Court may keep in mind.
15. In the instant case, the incident took place before more
than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the
same village and they are also relatives. The appellant was
about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime. It
was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner was taken
into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High
Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
207
High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present.
Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted
and he was not released on bail. Considering the totality of
facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the ends of justice
would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellant (Accused 1) is reduced to the period already
undergone.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K,
[(1999) 2 SCC 213], Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 1
SCC 343], Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 11 SCC 226],
Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala [(2015) 11 SCC 137], Shankar v.
State of Maharashtra, [(2019) 5 SCC 166], this Court has taken note
of the compromise between parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts
even in serious non-compoundable offences.
13. Given this position of law and the peculiar circumstances arising
out of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit
case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences
awarded to the appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the
dispute have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the
victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted
given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age.
There is no question of  the  settlement  being as a result of any coercion
or inducement. Considering that the parties are on friendly terms
now
and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of
sentence.
14. Second, at the time of the incident, the victim was a college
student, and both appellants too were no older than 20-22 years. The
attack was in pursuance of a verbal altercation during a sports match,
with there being no previous enmity between the parties. It does raise
hope that parties would have grown up and have mended their ways.
Indeed, in the present case, fifteen years have elapsed since the incident.
The appellants are today in their mid-thirties and present little chance of
committing the same crime.
15. Third, the appellants have no other criminal antecedents, no
previous enmity, and today are married and have children. They are the
sole bread earners of their family and have significant social obligations
MURALI v. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
to tend to. In such circumstances, it might not serve the interests of
society to keep them incarcerated any further.
16. Finally, both appellants have served a significant portion of
their sentences. Murali has undergone more than half of his sentence
and Rajavelu has been in jail for more than one year and eight months.
17. Considering all these unique factors, including the compromise
between the parties, we deem it appropriate to reduce the quantum of
the sentence imposed on the appellants. The appeals are, therefore, partly
allowed and  sentence  of  both  the  appellants  is  reduced  to  the
period  already undergone by them. Consequently, they are set free and
their bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Any pending applications are
disposed of accordingly.
Devika Gujral
Appeals partly allowed.