Sympathetic view can be taken against the accused to reduce the sentence even in serious non compoundable offences: Supreme Court of India

These connected appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court of Madras which upheld Murali’s 341 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 with a sentence of three Page | 1 months’ rigorous imprisonment and Rajavelu’s and Krishnan 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 Muthu Kumar and Krishnancornered the led to registration of Crime No. 531 of 2005 under Sections 147 148 341 352 323 324 307 and 34 of the IPC. 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 Page | 2 hurt with a dangerous weapon. Based upon the medical evidence and that the second­appellant had a clear intention to murder the 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 one­month rigorous the victim and no weapon or injury had been attributed to them by the The convict­appellants challenged the afore­stated judgment before two forums both of which unanimously upheld their conviction. The an order dated 20.08.2013 and their criminal revision petition before the 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 injured­victim and get their offences compounded Page | 3 based on mutual resolution and peaceful settlement between the parties This Court nevertheless issued limited notice only on the quantum of 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 A perusal of the applications for impleadment and compounding an amicable settlement. The appellants have admitted their fault taken the victim. In turn the victim has benevolently acknowledged the apology There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure 320(9) CrPC which explicitly prohibits any compounding except as Page | 4 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 decided to forget their past and live amicably this Court in Ram Pujan v “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 that the appellants and the injured persons who belong to one family had thereupon referred the matter to the trial court for verification of the bail and are stated to have already undergone a sentence of rigorous belong to one family have settled their dispute it is in our opinion not Page | 5 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 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 11. The afore­cited view has been consistently followed by this Court including in Ishwar Singh v. State of MP 15 SCC 667] laying SC 36 this Court while taking into account the fact of compromise SCC 681 : 1991 SCC 159 : AIR 1988 SC 2111] such offence was compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code however limited submission of the learned counsel for the Page | 6 sentence the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a 15. In the instant case the incident took place before more than fifteen also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of Court he was enlarged on bail but after the decision of the High Court he the totality of facts and circumstances in our opinion the ends of justice In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K 2 SCC 213] Bankat v. State of Maharashtra 1 SCC 343] Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan11 SCC 226] Nanda Gopalan v State of Kerala11 SCC 137] Shankar v. State of Maharashtra parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious non­ to the appellants. We say so because: first the parties to the dispute have Page | 7 of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement 14. Second at the time of the incident the victim was a college student have grown up and have mended their ways. Indeed in the present case 15. Third the appellants have no other criminal antecedents no previous 16. Finally both appellants have served a significant portion of their sentences. Murali has undergone more than half of his sentence and Page | 8 17. Considering all these unique factors including the compromise sentence imposed on the appellants. The appeals are therefore partly bonds if any are discharged. Any pending applications are disposed of Page | 9

Summary: A sympathetic view was taken in this case to reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded to the appellants by inspiring the victim’s confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. This was held in the case of Murali v State represented by the Inspector of Police, [Criminal Appeal No.24/2021], by Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant in the Supreme Court of India. The two original accused in the case cornered the victim and assaulted him by striking him on his head with a hockey stick and tried to kill him by giving a neck blow with a sharp edged object. The act was blocked by the victim which led to the severance of the victim’s thumb and finger of the right hand. The victim managed to escape and the matter was reported by his friend. The trial court opinioned that there existed a clear intention to murder the victim and if not for the victim defending himself, a fatal injury would have been caused to his neck  and would have died instantaneously. A concurrent sentence of three   months’   rigorous imprisonment        under Section 324 IPC and one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC was imposed on the both the accused. The High Court upheld the conviction. The counsel for the appellants submitted 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 appellant at the time of has forgiven the appellants and settled the dispute. Reliance was placed on the case of Ram Pujan v. State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456], where it was held that the major offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt a non compoundable offence, but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. The Court observed that “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, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the court may keep in mind. There is no question of the settlement being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence.