Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govardhansingh vs State Of M.P. on 12 September, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869 1 CRA-1285-2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1285 of 2008 GOVARDHANSINGH Versus STATE OF M.P. Appearance: Shri Brijendrakumar Mishra - advocate for the appellant. Shri Vinod Thakur, learned GA for the State. RESERVED ON:20.08.2024 DELIVERED ON: 12.9.2024 ORDER
1. This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
31.10.2008, passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, District-
Dewas, in ST No.127/2000, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, sentenced to undergo 7 years
R.I with fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution story, on 09.03.2003, in the evening at about 6.0 0
o’clock Bhagirath brought heifer from the compound, which escaped from
his hand and went in front of Govardhan’s house, upon which Govardhan
carried axe from house and started abusing and said that how calf came in
front of his house, with the intention to kill, Gowardhan struck a blow of axé
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869
2 CRA-1285-2008
on the left side of neck of the injured Bhagirath. Govardhan due to enmity on
account of joint tube well and agricaltural land, with an intention to kill
Bhagirath caused injury by axe.
3. First information report was lodged by the injured Bhagirath, on the
basis of which an offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code was
registered at Crime No.56/2008.The police after following the due procedure,
prepared the spot map, taken the statements of the witnesses, seized the
articles used in the crime. Injured persons were sent for treatment and police
arrested the accused person The police thereafter filed challan under Section
307 of Indian Penal code against the accused/appellant in the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dewas, who committed it to the
Court of sessions, Dewas from where it was transferred to the learned Trial
Court for consideration.
4. Thereafter, appellant was convicted for offence as mentioned in
paragraph No. 1.
5. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for
compounding the offences.
6. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar vide order dated 22.11.2022. In compliance to the said order, the
compromise was verified and a report dated 05.12.2022 has been submitted
in which it is mentioned that accused/appellant and the complainant have
entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining
between the accused/appellant and the complainant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869
3 CRA-1285-2008
7. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as sentence is concerned,
the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of approximately seven
days and the incident had taken place in the year 2003. Counsel further
submitted that the appellant is a government servant hence counsel prays that
probation be granted under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act so
that his service is not adversely effected. Counsel placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir vs. State of
Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1278) so also the order passed by this Court in the
case of Narottam vs. State of M.P. (1995(1) MPWN 238) and Rahamatullah
and others Vs. State of Madhya Prades, passed in CRA No. 751/2004 ( order
dated 18.7.2024) . It is also submitted that compromise has already been
arrived at between the parties and therefore, while maintaining the
conviction, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by enhancing the fine amount on the basis of compromise.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/state has opposed the prayer.
9. Nevertheless, the counsel for the appellant has not impugned the merits
of conviction and confined his arguments on sentencing of the appellant on
the basis of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the
view to examine the sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone
through the order of the trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified
by the eye-witnesses including the injured person, but also well supported by
medical testimony and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court.
In view of the whole evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of
learned trial Court regarding conviction appears to be on sound reasoning, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869
4 CRA-1285-2008
does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the finding with regard to
conviction under Section 307 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.
10. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part of non compoundable
offence under Section 307 of IPC and effect of compromise placed by the
complainant/injured and accused person. In the case of Narinder Singh and
Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr(Supra) relying on the various judgments,
the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and
quashed the criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para no.21 has
observed as under:-
“21. However, we have some other cases decided by
this Court commenting upon the nature of offence under
Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR
was lodged under sections 147,148,149,323,307,552
and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and
final report was presented to the Court under Section
173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the
charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at
between parties. The court accepted the settlement and
quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier
judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR SCW 5333 wherein the court
had observed that inherent powers under section 482 of
the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory
limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the
needs of justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of
the court. While doing so, commenting upon the
offences stated in the FIR, the court observed:
“Since the offences involved in this case are of a
personal nature and are not offences against the society,
we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the
parties whether there is any possibility of a settlement.
We are happy to note that due to efforts made by
learned counsel, parties have seen reason and have
entered into a compromise.” This Court, thus, treated
such offences including one under section 307, IPC
were of a personal nature and not offences against theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:268695 CRA-1285-2008
society.”
11. On this point, the view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in (2018) 15
SCC 343 is also worth referring in the context of this case as under:-
“10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State of M.P. and
Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State of J & K, (1999) 2
SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1
SCC 711, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence
even though the offence is a noncompoundable depending on the
facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court
while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to the period
already undergone.”
11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not
compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of
Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise
arrive at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while
maintaining the conviction.”
12. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The
State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A.
No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh)
decided on 18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram Singh vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019, Sohan Jangu & others vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh reported as 2023 Lawsuit (MP) 392, Devendra Singh vs.
State of M.P. (2023 Lawsuit (MP)781) and Shravan vs. The State of M.P.
reported as 2024 Lawsuit (MP) 240 has taken a similar view.
13. On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote the excerpt of the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869
6 CRA-1285-2008
Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) which is as
under:-
” 28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the
criminal delivery system, but we do not find any legislative or
judicially laid down guidelines to assess the trial Court in meeting
out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he
is held guilty of the charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the
decisions of this Court, it would appear that this Court takes into
account a combination of different factors while exercising
discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence,
rehabilitation, etc.
29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of the incident
or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor in
interfering the sentence awarded to commensurate with the nature
of offence being committed to avoid bitterness in the families of
the accused and the victim and it will always be better to restore
their relation, if possible, but the compromise cannot be taken to
be a solitary basis until the other aggravating and mitigating
factors also support and are favourable to the accused for molding
the sentence which always has to be examined in the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand.”
14. As the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable under
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to
pass the order of acquittal on the basis of compromise but, it is by now well
settled that such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of
sentence. The appellant and the complainant are living in the same society,
they are residing happily since last so many years, they want to live with
peace, and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of
imprisonment awarded against the appellant may be reduced by enhancing
the fine amount.
15. On this aspect, learned counsel for the appellant has also requested that
since the appellant is a contract teacher and working in a Government
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869
7 CRA-1285-2008
Department and he has faced the trial from more than 15 years and also
suffered the incarceration of jail sentence, he may be given the benefit of the
Act, 1958 and order of compensation would serve the ends of justices. It is
also requested that since the injured complainant party has compromised the
case, his punishment may be converted only in compensation.
16. Now the question is as to whether the appellant being a Government
servant is entitled to get the benefit of the Act, 1958. In this case, the
complainant has filed compromise which has been verified by the Registry
of this Court. Both parties have settled the matter. The appellant has already
suffered the ordeal of 15 years and also undergone some period in jail, it will
be propitious to consider the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in favour of
the appellant.
17. With regard to the prayer that the appellant is a government servant, he
should be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act,1958 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘The Act, 1958’) in this regard, it is worth to quote here under
Sections 4, 5 and 12 of The Act, 1958:
Section 4:Power of Court to release certain offenders on
probation of good conduct:
(1) When any person is found guilty of having
committed an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person
is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the nature of the
offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient
to release him on probation of good conduct, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, the Court may, instead ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:268698 CRA-1285-2008
sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he
be released on his entering into a bond, with or without
sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called
upon during such period not exceeding three years, as
the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the
peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the Court shall not direct such release
of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or
his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place over which the Court exercises
jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live 8
during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2)Before making any order under sub-section (1), the
Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of
the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3)When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the
Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the
offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in
addition pass a supervision order directing that the
offender shall remain under the supervision of a
probation officer named in the order during such period,
not being less than one year, as may be specified
therein, and may in such supervision order impose such
conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision
of the offender.
(4)The Court making a supervision order under
subsection (3) shall require the offender, before he is
released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties,
to observe the conditions specified in such order and
such additional conditions with respect to residence,
abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the
Court may, having regard to the particular
circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a
repetition of the same offence or a commission of other
offences by the offender.
(5)The Court making a supervision order under
subsection (3) shall explain to the offender the terms
and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish
one copy of the supervision order to each of the
offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer
concerned.”
Section 5. Power of Court to require released offenders
to pay compensation and costs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869
9 CRA-1285-2008
(1) The Court directing the release of an offender under
section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the
same time a further order directing him to pay
(a)such compensation as the Court thinks reasonable for
loss or injury caused to any person by the commission
of the offence; and
(b)such costs of the proceedings as the Court thinks
reasonable.
(2)The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1)
may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the
provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code.
(3)A Civil Court trying any suit, arising out of the same
matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take
into account any amount paid or recovered as
compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding
damages.
Section 12 Removal of disqualification attaching to
conviction
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a
person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under
the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an
offence under such law:Provided that nothing in this
section shall apply to a person who, after his release
under section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the
original offence.”
18. On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote the excerpt of the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir vs. State of
Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1278 which reads as under:-
“4. From the judgment of the High Court it appears that
though the sentence imposed for the offence Under
Section 323 of the Code was six months, the appellantSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:2686910 CRA-1285-2008
and the co-accused had already suffered over one year’s
imprisonment. Ordinarily, in a situation as here, there
would be no need to interfere. Learned counsel for the
appellant has, however, pressed the appeal as the
appellant is in Government service and if the conviction
and sentence are maintained, he would lose his service.
Both the parties to the assault were close relations.
There is no material on the record to indicate that the
appellant had any previous conviction. In the absence of
such evidence, we treat the appellant as a first offender.
He is entitled to be admitted to the benefits of probation
Under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958, taking into consideration the circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence and the character of the
appellant. While maintaining his conviction we direct
that he shall be released on probation of good conduct
Under Section 4 of the Act. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhiwani, before whom the appellant is
directed to appear within four weeks from today shall
release him after due admonition. We do not consider it
necessary to direct him to enter into a bond in the facts
of the case.
5. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the
case, the conviction should not affect his service. ”
19. On this point, Narottam vs. State of M.P. , reported as 1995 (1) MPWN
238 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting the benefit of Section
4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the applicant has held as under:-
“Reliance was placed on the case of Rajbeer vs. State of Haryana
reported in AIR 1985 SC 1278. In that case it was held that on
facts when the accused was in Government service, the probation
could be granted u/s.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act so that
his service is not adversely effected. The facts of this case are
similar. Both the petitioners are in Government service. There is
no criminal history against them. Therefore, they are entitled to be
released on probation instead of being sentenced to any
imprisonment as fine.”
20. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and
by this Court since the appellant is a Government servant, and he has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869
11 CRA-1285-2008
convicted for offence under Sections 307 of IPC, 1860 and now after
compromise, it would be appropriate that the appellant should be given the
benefit of Sections 5 & 12 of The Act, 1958, as he is in government service.
It is also worth to be kept in mind that the offence proved against the
appellant is a serious offence but when the parties have amicably settled their
dispute and due to their settlement, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble
Apex Court, his sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone by
him and therefore, the nature of offence would be mitigated.
21. In addition to that, it is poignant to point out that when on the basis of
compromise petition, this Court, relying upon Gian Singh (Supra), Narinder
Singh and Ors (Supra), Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan (Supra), Bhagwan
Narayan Gaikwad (Supra), can use its extraordinary jurisdiction for either
quashing the criminal proceedings or reducing the sentence, it will be well
within jurisdiction to give the benefit of The Act, 1958 in appropriate cases,
when parties have settled their matter amicably and filed compromise
petition. In the case at hand, where no evidence has been filed to indicate any
criminal antecedent against appellant, he is entitled to get the benefit of the
Act under the aforesaid provisions.
22. In the upshot of the aforesaid analysis of law and deliberation in
entirity, it would be condign to release the appellant under the provisions of
Sections 5 & 12 of ‘The Act, 1958’ by imposing compensation of Rs.20,000/-
in the State Exchequer. In the result thereof, it is directed that conviction of
appellant will not affect his profession and future career in any manner.
23. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:26869
12 CRA-1285-2008
property stands affirmed.
24. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary
compliance.
25. Pending application, if any shall be closed.
26. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
VD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY
Signing time: 17-09-2024
12:26:55