✦ Supreme Court of India

It was, therefore, jointly prayed on behalf of the parties v. ISHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA

Case at a glance

Judgment

s.307 - Conviction by trial court affirmed by High Court - During pendency of appeal before Supreme Court compro- mise between accused and victim - Joint prayer by them that sentence be reduced to period already undergone - HELD: Offence. uls 307 is not compoundable - However, ·court may take into account the factum of compromise in reducing the 'D sentence - Keeping in view the facts of compromise between the parties, the age of accused at the time of offence and other factors, sentence reduced to the period already undergone - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 320 - Sentencing - Compromise between parties. E F The appellant-accused along with three others was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable u/s 307 r/w s.34 IPC on the allegation that the accused persons attacked the complainant-PW-4. The trial court held the appellant guilty and convicted him u/s 307 IPC and -sen- tenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The other three were given benefit of doubt. The High Court declined to interfere. In the instant appeal filed by the accused, on oral G prayer made on his behalf, complainant-victim was joined as party respondent no. 2. During the pendency of the appeal a compromise.was stated to have been arrived at between the accused and the complainant-victim. There- fore, it was jointly prayed on their behalf that the appel- H 574 \ l-.. y ISHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 575 -~-l !ant-accused be released treating the sentence already A undergone by him as sufficient. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 An offence punishable under Section 307, IPC is not a compoundable offence. Section 320 of the B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly states that no offence shall be compounded if it is not compound- able under the Code. At the same time, however, while dealing with such matters, this Court may take into ac- count a relevant and important consideration about com- c promise between the parties for the purpose of reduction of sentence. [para 13) [578-F-G]

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2008). ← Search more judgments