Amicable settlement between the parties can be a relevant factor for reducing the quantum of sentence: 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: If the parties mutually decide and consensually agree to the settlement between them, then the court can consider reducing the quantum of the sentence given to the accused. The decision was taken in the case of Murali vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police [Criminal appeal no. 24 of 2021] citing the above-stated reasons by the bench of Hon’ble Justice N.V Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose. In the instant case, the appellant was accused was convicted u/s 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code with a sentence of three months’ rigorous imprisonment, and the other accused was convicted under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and was sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and the High Court had upheld this decision given by the Trial Court. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, during the pendency of the appeal, the parties decided to enter into an amicable settlement. And therefore, parties requested the Court to reduce their sentences as they had already agreed to a settlement between themselves. Supreme Court observed that the offenses cannot be compounded since Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offenses. But for getting a solution, SC referred to the previous judgments passed in the cases with similar circumstances and therefore, the bench of Supreme Court noted that in the cases of Ram Pujan vs. State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456] and Ishwar Singh vs. State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 667], the earlier bench had taken the decision of reducing the sentence of the convicts even in the serious non-compoundable offenses. SC bench also considered the reduction of sentences for the convicts because parties to the dispute had mutually buried their hatchet and at the time of the incident both accused too were no older than 20­-22 years and none of them had any criminal antecedents, no previous enmity and in present, they are married and have children. SC observed that both the accused have already served a significant portion of their sentences. Therefore, in context with the previously passed judgments, the SC bench decided to reduce the sentence of the convicts because they had made an amicable settlement. SC stated that “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.” “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.”