Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 636 (MP)

Deepak Kumar Lodhi v. State of M. P.

2025-10-27

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

body2025
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by present appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Jabalpur (M.P.), in ST No.629/2019 whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulations. 2. As per prosecution story, on 16.2.2019 at night about 12.30 P.M. complainant Dinesh Lodhi was standing near his house with his cousing brother Abhishek Lodhi. At that time his uncle Deepak Lodhi came and told Abhishek Lodhi that why don't you play his DJ. Then complainant told to Deepak that it is his choice to place DJ of whoever he wants. On this, accused Deepak Lodhi abused. When complainant Dinesh forbade the accused to abuse him, thereupon accused Deepak with an intention to kill complainant, stabbed him twice by means of knife on his left side of abdomen and on right waist, owing to which blood oozed out. Injured was taken to hospital. FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under sections 294 and 307 of IPC. 3. Appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and appreciating the evidence led by the parties, learned trial Court found the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under sections 307of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned preceding paragraph No.1. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, application for compromise has been filed. Pursuant to order dated 10.9.2025 passed by this Court, Registrar (J-II) of this Court recorded the statements of complainant/injured on 17.9.2025 and verified the correctness and genuineness of the compromise. As per the report, parties have amicably settled their dispute and have arrived at compromise on their own free will & volition and without any threat, inducement or coercion to settle the dispute and the compromise is voluntarily. 5. On the basis of the verification report dated 17.9.2025 furnished by Registrar (Judicial-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 307of IPC, which is not compoundable. 6. 5. On the basis of the verification report dated 17.9.2025 furnished by Registrar (Judicial-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 307of IPC, which is not compoundable. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2019 i.e. almost 6 years ago. It is further submitted that appellant was in jail from 17.2.2019 to 19.3.2019 (Total 1 month and 4 days) & from 26.6.2024 till date (total 1 year 4 months) during trial and after post conviction, in this case so far. It is further submitted that compromise has already been entered between the parties and parties have amicably settled their dispute. 7. It is submitted by the counsel for present appellant that keeping in view the statements of Dr. Bindu Raphael (PW-6) and Dr. Rahul Kumar (P.W.7) no offence under section 307 is made out. At the most, the offence proved from the available record is under section 326 of IPC. 8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the present appellant that present appellant is in actual custody for more than 1 year 4 months and 9 days as per custody report dated 5.10.2025. Keeping in view the actual custody and offence of section 326 of IPC coupled with the factum of compromise between the parties, the punishment may be reduced to the period already undergone by present appellant. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for alteration of conviction from section 307 of IPC into sections 326 and to reduce the sentence of present appellants to the period already undergone by him in custody. 9. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer on the ground that learned trial Court has rightly found proved the offence under sections 307 of the IPC against the present appellant and he has rightly been sentenced of imprisonment. There is no ground for reduction of sentence as well as to convert the conviction. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. I have carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence adduced during trial. Though Dr. There is no ground for reduction of sentence as well as to convert the conviction. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. I have carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence adduced during trial. Though Dr. Bindu Raphael (P.W.6) has deposed in her statement that she has given query report Exhibit P/10, according to which the injury was shown to be dangerous to life but she categorically admitted in cross examination that if timely treatment had not been given to the injured, death could have been possible. In cross -examination, she admits that many times if blood oozes in a simple injury and if the injured person does not incur treatment, he may die. She admits that in this case, the injured received treatment, hence, there was no possibility of death. 12. Similarly, Dr. Rahul Kumar (P.W.7) has also opined that injury was grievous in nature but he has not given any opinion that it was dangerous to life. An opinion in this regard could be given by Dr. Rahul Kumar (P.W.7) who has medically examined the injured person and operated the injury but he simply indicated that it was grievous in nature. Further, it is also revealed from the statement of injured Dinesh (P.W.1) that he sustained injury accidently when Dinesh tried to intervene the scuffling between his brother Abhishek and accused Deepak. Deepak had tried to inflict injury by means of knife to his brother Abhishek but he accidently came between Deepak and Abhishek. Therefore, the injury was sustained by him. Keeping in view the statement of these witnesses and on perusal of material on record and in light of attending circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant seems to be convincing that the offence under section 326 of IPC is made out instead of offence under section 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the conviction held by the trial Court is modified to the extent that appellant is guilty of offence committed under Section 326 of IPC rather than section 307 of IPC. 13. Turning to the point of compromise, it is also significant to note that the compromise has been filed at the stage of appeal before this Court. Accordingly, the conviction held by the trial Court is modified to the extent that appellant is guilty of offence committed under Section 326 of IPC rather than section 307 of IPC. 13. Turning to the point of compromise, it is also significant to note that the compromise has been filed at the stage of appeal before this Court. On this aspect, it would be relevant to note the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 2009 SC 675 ], wherein the apex Court has observed as under: "15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstances which, the Court may keep in mind." 14. On this point, the view of Hon'ble apex Court in the Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1745 is also worth referring in the context of this case as under:- "10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal v. State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213 , Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 71 1, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence even though the offence is a non-compoundable 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.” 15. In the case of Murali v. State; 2021 (1) MPWN 26 = (2021) 1 SCC 726 , Hon'ble the apex Court has held that the fact of amicable settlement/compromise between the parties can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in quantum of sentence of convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences. 16. In the case of Murali v. State; 2021 (1) MPWN 26 = (2021) 1 SCC 726 , Hon'ble the apex Court has held that the fact of amicable settlement/compromise between the parties can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in quantum of sentence of convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences. 16. In the present case, it is seen that the parties have entered into compromise and have amicably settled their dispute, which has been duly verified. It is true that the offence under section 326 of IPC is not compoundable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; therefore, the compromise cannot be allowed. However, as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in aforementioned case laws, in exceptional circumstances, considering the voluntary settlement between the parties, the Court may give effect to such compromise at the stage of final disposal of appeal and further that where parties have amicably resolved their disputes and the complainant has unequivocally supported the compromise; the Court may, in the interest of justice and to maintain social harmony, modify the relief suitably by reducing the substantive sentence. 17. Thus, the offence under section 326 of IPC is non-compoundable, as a result of which compromise application stands rejected, however, considering the nature of the accusation, the compromise has voluntarily been entered into between the parties; the fact that the complainant has no objection to compounding the offence, as also the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant and also the fact that appellant is facing the agony for the last 06 years as the incident had taken place in the year 2019, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 18. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under section 307 of IPC is modified to the extent that appellant is held guilty under section 326 of IPC rather than 307 of IPC. As a result, the appellant's sentence as awarded by the trial Court for the alleged offences is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him so far. The fine amount, if not already deposited, shall be deposited within a period of one month. As a result, the appellant's sentence as awarded by the trial Court for the alleged offences is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him so far. The fine amount, if not already deposited, shall be deposited within a period of one month. However, if the appellant fail to pay the fine amount within the stipulated time, he would suffer the punishment as awarded by the trial Court in default of payment of fine. 19. Registry/trial Court is directed to prepare super-session warrant/release warrant and to send the same to the Superintendent of jail/Jail authorities concerned with a direction that if appellant/accused is not required in any other case, he be released in this case forthwith. However, it is clarified that if fine amount as imposed by the trial Court for the offence under sections 307 of IPC if not already deposited, the same be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of release of the appellant/accused from the jail, failing which he would surrender himself to serve the entire jail sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulation. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. 20. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance. 21. Let record of the trial Court along with judgment of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance. 22. Certified copy as per rules.