Tel. HC: Constitutional Validity of Section 38(2) of RP Act and Rule 5.7.1 of ECI’s Handbook Upheld  ||  MP HC: Power Exercised u/s 319 of CrPC Must Come Before Acquittal Order in Case of Joint Result  ||  Del. HC: Order of CIC Directing CBDT to Give Information Regarding Ram Janmabhoomi Trust Set Aside  ||  Ker HC: In Non-Performance of Agreement, Buyer to Get Charge Over Property For Paying Purchase Price  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Reinstate Ayurvedic Doctors Who Haven’t Attained 62 Years of Age  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Accrual Time For Taxing Income to Be Postponed Till Dispute’s Adjudication  ||  Supreme Court: Distributor Not An Agent But An Independent Contractor  ||  Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics    

Manjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (22 Jul 2019)

In a non-compoundable offence, compromise entered into between parties is a relevant circumstance for Court to consider quantum of sentence

MANU/SC/0948/2019

Criminal

Present appeal arises out of judgment passed by the High Court by which the High Court has acquitted Accused-Ranjit Singh from the charges by giving him benefit of doubt but affirmed the conviction of the Appellant-Manjit Singh by the Trial Court and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. The High Court has also enhanced the fine amount with a direction to pay the same to the complainant-Hardip Singh as compensation.

During pendency of the appeal, parties are said to have compromised the matter. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Accused and the complainant have filed affidavit stating therein that, the parties have compromised the matter. The Appellant-Accused has also filed the compromise deed dated 29th May, 2019 entered into between the parties.

Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is a non-compoundable offence. No permission can be granted to record the compromise between the parties. In Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India has held that. in a non-compoundable offence the compromise entered into between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind for considering the quantum of sentence.

In the present case, the Appellant-Accused, Manjit Singh, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years. The Appellant is said to have served seventeen months of imprisonment. Taking note of the compromise entered into between the parties and considering the relationship of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and also the sentence undergone by the Appellant-Accused, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the Appellant under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC is reduced from five years/two years to the period already undergone by him.

In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the fine amount imposed upon the Appellant is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed.

Relevant : Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/8126/2008

Tags : OFFENCE   COMPROMISE   IMPRISONMENT   REDUCTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved