1 2025:CGHC:10961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 465 of 2005 1 - Bhagwat S/o Shri Mangal Narang Aged About 18 Years Occupation - Cultivation, R/o Village Sakri, Mandirhasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Mangal S/o Shri Dhaniram Narang Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Cultivation, R/o Village Sakri, Mandirhasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramdas S/o Shri Dhaniram Aged About 27 Years Occupation - Gardening, R/o Village Sakri, Mandirhasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Ramji (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28/02/2025 ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mandirhasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G. A. For the Complainant/ Victim Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 05/03/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 06.05.2005 passed by the learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raipur (CG) (for short “trial Court”) in Sessions Trial No.83/2005 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307/34 IPC RI for 3 years & fine of Rs.2000/- each in default of fine further RI for 6 months 2 2. During pendency of this appeal appellant No.4 Ramji has passed away. Hence his appeal stood abated. 3. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that on the date of incident i.e. on 13.11.2004 in between 12.00 to 12.30 hours when the complainant Hira Bai (PW-2) was working in her house, her son Muktavan @ Palu asked her to give him Rs. 10/- and when after taking the money he was leaving the house, at that time accused Mangal came there and dragged Palu (PW-1) towards the Itwari Grocery Shop stating that he will kill him. After reaching in front of the aforesaid shop, the other accused persons namely Tetku @ Ramdas and Ramji caught him and Bhagwat threatened to kill him. He then assaulted Palu with knife ¾ times in his stomach and thereafter Palu fell down. At the same time the complainant along with her granddaughter Sulochana followed them and reached to the incident place and cried for help. Her son Pushawan reached there and then the accused persons ran away. The incident was witnessed by Dhannu (PW-7) and others. After that the husband of the complainant namely Kumar, brother-in-law and Mohan came at incident place. As per the prosecution, the above incident was the out come of a fight, which took place between the accused persons and Palu earlier. The incident was reported to Police Station Mandirhasaud. Upon which Crime No.304/05 under Section 307/34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons. Investigation was set on motion and after due investigation, the charge-sheet under Section 307/34 of IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur who committed the matter to the Sessions Court who in turn made over the case to the trial Court for trial. The appellants were charged for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. They denied the charges and claimed trial. Learned trial court on appreciation of evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 3 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC were also recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case, and claimed trial. 5. By the judgment impugned learned Court below has held the accused/appellants guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court by the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits as the complainant/victim and appellants have entered into a compromise and applications under Sections 359 (5) and 359 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been filed. He prays that the applications may be allowed and appellants may be acquitted from all the charges. Alternatively, he submits that the incident had occurred on 13.11.2004, during pendency of the appeal, the appellants were granted bail by this Court, they have never misused the liberty granted to them and after their conviction their sentence was suspended by this Court and they have been duly following the conditions. They were aged about 18, 38 and 27 years respectively at the time of incident and they have faced lis for almost 20 years. In light of above, in the event if this Court is not convinced, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to period already undergone by them which comes to about 6 months. He submits that by the flux of time they must have reformed in the society and one opportunity may be given to them. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the judgment impugned and submits that the statement of Palu (PW-1) and complainant- Hirabai (PW-2) clearly goes to show the involvement of the accused/appellants in the aforesaid crime. He submits that Section 307 IPC is not compoundable, therefore, the applications deserve to be dismissed. 4 8. Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the complainant/victim Palu submits that the appellants and victim are the resident of same village and the incident has occurred on 13.11.2004 and since then they are residing in same village and have settled their dispute and left behind the animosity amongst them, they are living peacefully in the same village, therefore, he has no objection in allowing these applications and as such in the event of dismissal of such applications, he accepts the submissions with regard to reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 10. Since Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable, therefore this Court is not deem it necessary to allow these applications. Hence application filed under Sections 359 (5) and 359 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are rejected. 11. This takes me to merits of the case. Though the learned counsel for the appellants did not press this appeal on merits of the case and restricted his arguments to reduction of sentence, however this Court has meticulously gone through the evidence and material placed on record. 12. The incident said to have been committed on 13.11.2004 and FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged on the same day at 15.30 hours against all the accused/appellants. In the FIR itself the happening of the incident has been described. Muktavan @ Palu (PW-1) sustained injuries and categorically deposed against the appellants and the manner the assault was made and the overt act of all the appellants. He has stated that he was held by appellants Ramji, Mangal and Ramdas and appellant Bhagwat assaulted him with knife on his stomach he became unconscious and fell down. The similar statement has been given by Hirabai (PW-2) who also narrated the incident in detail. Therefore, these 5 witnesses were subjected to cross-examination. Nothing significant is brought on record to disbelieve the statement. The oral testimony of PW-1 is also corroborated by the medical evidence through the statement of Dr. S. Boss (PW-13) who found following injuries on the person of the victim (PW-1):- 1. एक कटा हुआ घाव 1. 5x .5 सेमी . पेटा पेर ाሮयी ओर उपेर क हिस्से । 2. एक कटा हुआ घाव 1.5 x.5 सेमी . छाती मी सेमीने क ओर ने चे दशव इन्टार कस्टाल ቢኔसे मी । 3. एक कटा हुआ घाव 1.5x .5 सेमी . छाती मी ाሮयी ओर ग्यीरव इन्टार कस्टाल ቢኔसे मी& । 4. एक कटा हुआ घाव 1.5x.5 सेमी . मी'से क गरई तीक ाሮयी भु+जा मी ाሮर क ओर । 5. एक कटा हुआ घाव 1.5x.5 सेमी . मी'से क गरई तीक ाሮयी जा'घा मी ाሮर क ओर । 13.Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 14.This leads me to second submission as to whether the period can only be undergone. 15. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2011) 13 SCC 311 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 13 observed as under:- “13.We must immediately state that the offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore, compounding of the offence in the present case is out of question. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned senior counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in regard to the sentence. The incident occurred on May 17, 1991 and it is almost twenty years since then. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim have become cordial and prior to the appellants' surrender, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half years. Having regard to these 6 circumstances, we are satisfied that ends of justice will be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine. 16. In another decision cited by learned counsel for appellants the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Murali Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police reported in (2021) 1 S.C.R. 201 in Para 10 observed as under:- “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 noncompoundable, 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 Section 326 read 7 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) 17. Overall facts & circumstances indicates that no harm to society at large is likely to cause in case the appellants are prematurely released. It is also submitted by learned counsel for victim that the dispute between the appellants & victim has been settled. They are residents of same village & now living peacefully without any animosity. It is to be seen that by now the appellants have attained age of maturity. The victim raised no objection to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. These are the mitigating factor needs to be considered while imposing sentence. In view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed upon the appellants to the sentence already undergone/served by them. Hence, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC, the sentence of 3 years imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 18. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS 2023. 19. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 20. The fine amount and default sentence is not disturbed. Thus appeal allowed in part. Consequence to follow. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.03.10 17:15:44 +0530