It was, therefore, jointly prayed on behalf of the parties v. ISHWAR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
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.