2021 INSC 0043
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.24/2021
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 10813 of 2019]
Murali   .....APPELLANT
        VERSUS
State rep. by the Inspector of Police .....RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.25/2021
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 10814 of 2019]
Rajavelu .....APPELLANT
           VERSUS
State rep. by the Inspector of Police .....RESPONDENT
ORDER
        Leave granted. 
2. These   connected   appeals   have   been   preferred   against   the   judgment
dated   01.11.2018   of   the   High   Court   of   Madras   which   upheld   Murali’s
( appellant   in   SLP   (Crl)   No   10813/2019 )   conviction   under   Sections   324   and
341   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (“IPC”)   with   a   sentence   of   three
Page  |  1

months’   rigorous   imprisonment,   and   Rajavelu’s   ( appellant   in   SLP   (Crl)
10814/2019 ) conviction under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC and sentence of
five years’ rigorous imprisonment. 
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.08.2005, one Senthil had
a   verbal   altercation   with   Kumar   ( original   accused   no.   3 )   and   Krishnan
( original accused no. 5 ) during a volleyball match. The injured­victim (Sathya
@   Sathiyajothi)   came   to   the   aid   of   his   friend   Senthil   and   opposed   both
Kumar   and   Krishnan.   Thereafter   at   about   2:30PM   on   09.08.2005,   the
appellants – Rajavelu and Murali ( original accused nos. 1 and 2 ) along with
Muthu, Kumar and Krishnan ( original   accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 ) cornered the
victim   and   assaulted   him.   Murali   allegedly   struck   the   victim   on   his   head
with a hockey stick and Rajavelu tried to kill him by giving a neck blow with
a   Veechu Aruval   (sharp­edged object), which was fortunately blocked by the
victim. In the process, the left hand of the victim and the thumb and finger
of his right hand got severed. The victim was able to escape and the matter
was   reported   by   his   friend,   PW­1.   All   five   persons   were   arrested.   It   further
led   to   registration   of   Crime   No.   531   of   2005   under   Sections
147,148,341,352, 323, 324, 307 and 34 of the IPC. 
4. Relying upon the testimony of the victim (PW­3), which was held to be
unimpeachable   and   stellar,   the   Assistant   Sessions   Judge   ­cum­   Chief
Judicial   Magistrate,   Cuddalore,   vide   his   judgment   dated   28.01.2012   held
Murali   guilty   of   wrongfully   restraining   the   victim   and   voluntarily   causing
Page  |  2

hurt   with   a   dangerous   weapon.   Based   upon   the   medical   evidence   and
recovery of the   Veechu Aruval   from  Rajavelu, the trial  Court further opined
that   the   second­appellant   (Rajavelu)   had   a   clear   intention   to   murder   the
victim and that if not for the victim  defending himself, a fatal  injury  would
have   been   caused   to   his   neck   and   he   would   have   died   instantaneously.
Consequently,   a   concurrent   sentence   of   three   months’   rigorous
imprisonment   under   Section   324   IPC   and   one­month   rigorous
imprisonment under Section 341 IPC was imposed on Murali, and Rajavelu
was awarded five years’ rigorous imprisonment under  Section 307 IPC  and
another one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 IPC.   Muthu,
Kumar   and   Krishnan   were  acquitted   as  there  was  no   specific   allegation   by
the   victim   and   no   weapon   or   injury   had   been   attributed   to   them   by   the
prosecution.
5. The   convict­appellants   challenged   the   afore­stated   judgment   before
two   forums,   both   of   which   unanimously   upheld   their   conviction.   The
Additional   District­cum­Sessions   Judge   dismissed   the   first   appeal   through
an   order   dated   20.08.2013   and   their   criminal   revision   petition   before   the
High Court also met with the same fate vide an order dated 01.11.2018.
6. Unsatisfied   still,   the   appellants   have   approached   this   Court   seeking
special   leave   to   appeal   against   the   High   Court’s   dismissal   of   their
conviction. However, through an application filed on 22.11.2019, they have
sought   to   implead   the   injured­victim   and   get   their   offences   compounded
Page  |  3

based   on   mutual   resolution   and   peaceful   settlement   between   the   parties.
This   Court,   nevertheless,   issued   limited   notice   only   on   the   quantum   of
sentence. 
7. The   records   of   the   case   elicit   that   the   findings   of   all   three   preceding
forums are concurrent and without fault. Not only have the appellants been
unable   to   mount   an   effective   challenge   founded   upon   a   question   of   law,
their   learned   Counsels,   given   the   subsequent   events   and   change   in
circumstances,   have   very   fairly   restricted   their   prayer   qua   reduction   of
sentence only.
8. A   perusal   of   the   applications   for   impleadment   and   compounding
makes it clear that the parties have on the advice of their elders entered into
an   amicable   settlement.   The   appellants   have   admitted   their   fault,   taken
responsibility   for   their   actions,   and   have   maturely   sought   forgiveness   from
the   victim.   In   turn,   the   victim   has   benevolently   acknowledged   the   apology,
and considering the young age of the appellants at the time of the incident,
has forgiven the appellants and settled the dispute. Learned Counsel for the
victim­applicant   has   reiterated   the   same   stance   during   oral   hearings   also.
9. There   can   be   no   doubt   that   Section   320   of   the   Criminal   Procedure
Code,   1973   (“CrPC”)   does   not   encapsulate   Section   324   and   307   IPC   under
its list of compoundable offences. Given the unequivocal language of Section
320(9)   CrPC   which   explicitly   prohibits   any   compounding   except   as
permitted   under   the   said   provision,   it   would   not   be   possible   to   compound
Page  |  4

the appellants’ offences. 
10. Notwithstanding   thereto,   it   appears   to   us   that   the   fact   of   amicable
settlement   can   be   a   relevant   factor   for   the   purpose   of   reduction   in   the
quantum of sentence. In somewhat similar circumstances where the parties
decided to  forget  their  past and live  amicably, this  Court in   Ram  Pujan  v.
State of UP   [(1973) 2 SCC 456],  held as follows:
“6. The only question with which we are concerned, as mentioned earlier,
is   about   the   sentence.   In   this   respect   we   find   that   an   application   for
compromise   on   behalf   of   the   injured   prosecution   witnesses   and   the
appellants was filed before the High Court. It was stated in the application
that the appellants and the injured persons, who belong to one family, had
amicably settled their dispute and wanted to live in peace. The High Court
thereupon   referred   the   matter   to   the   trial   court   for   verification   of   the
compromise. After the compromise was got verified, the High Court passed
an order stating that as the  offence under Section 326 of the Penal Code,
1860   was   non­compoundable,   permission   to   compound   the   offence   could
not be granted. The High Court  all the same reduced the sentence for the
offence   under   Section   326   read   with   Section   34   of   the   Penal   Code,   1860
from four years to two years.
7. The appellants during the pendency of the appeal were not released on
bail   and   are   stated   to   have   already   undergone   a   sentence   of   rigorous
imprisonment   for   a   period   of   more   than   four   months.   As   the   parties   who
belong   to   one   family   have   settled   their   dispute,   it   is,   in   our   opinion,   not
necessary   to   keep   the   appellants   in   jail   for   a   longer   period.   The   major
offence   for   which   the   appellants   have   been   convicted   is   no   doubt
non­compoundable,   but   the   fact   of   compromise   can   be   taken   into
account   in   determining   the   quantum   of   sentence.   It   would,   in   our
Page  |  5

opinion,   meet   the   ends   of   justice   if   the   sentence   of   imprisonment
awarded   to   the   appellants   is   reduced   to   the   period   already
undergone   provided   each   of   the   appellants   pays   a   fine   of   Rs   1500   in
addition   to   the   period   of   imprisonment   already   undergone   for   the   offence
under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the of the Penal Code, 1860. In
default   of   payment   of   fine,   each   of   the   appellants   shall   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment   for   a   total   period   of   one   year   for   the   offence   under   Section
326 read with Section 34 of the of the Penal Code, 1860. Out of the fine, if
realised,   Rs   2000   should   be   paid   to   Ram   Sewak   and   Rs   2000   to   Ram
Samujh as compensation. We order accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The   afore­cited   view   has   been   consistently   followed   by   this   Court
including   in   Ishwar   Singh   v.   State   of   MP   [(2008)   15   SCC   667],   laying
down that:
“13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 9 SCC 255 : (2006) 2 SCC
(Cri) 561] ,   Murugesan   v.   Ganapathy Velar   [(2001) 10 SCC 504 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 1032] and   Ishwarlal   v.   State of M.P.   [(2008) 15 SCC 671 : JT (1988) 3
SC   36   (1)]   this   Court,   while   taking   into   account   the   fact   of   compromise
between   the   parties,  reduced   sentence   imposed   on   the   appellant­accused
to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But  it
was   also   stated   that   in   Mahesh   Chand   v.   State   of   Rajasthan   [1990   Supp
SCC   681   :   1991   SCC   (Cri)   159   :   AIR   1988   SC   2111]   such   offence   was
ordered to be compounded.
14.   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
Page  |  6

sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a
relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.
15.   In   the   instant   case,   the   incident   took   place   before   more   than   fifteen
years;   the   parties   are   residing   in   one   and   the   same   village   and   they   are
also   relatives.   The   appellant   was   about   20   years   of   age   at   the   time   of
commission of crime. It was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner
was   taken   into   custody.   During   the   pendency   of   appeal   before   the   High
Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he
again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail,
the prayer was not granted and he was not released on bail. Considering
the   totality  of  facts   and   circumstances,  in  our  opinion,  the  ends  of   justice
would   be   met   if   the   sentence   of   imprisonment   awarded   to   the   appellant
(Accused 1) is reduced to the period already undergone.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. In   later   decisions   including   in   Ram   Lal   v.   State   of   J&K,   [(1999)   2
SCC 213] ,   Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, [(2005) 1 SCC 343] ,   Mohar
Singh   v.   State   of   Rajasthan   [(2015)   11   SCC   226],   Nanda   Gopalan   v.
State of Kerala [(2015) 11 SCC 137] ,  Shankar v. State of Maharashtra,
[(2019) 5 SCC 166],   this Court has taken note of the compromise between
parties   to   reduce   the   sentence   of   the   convicts   even   in   serious   non­
compoundable offences.
13. Given  this  position  of  law and  the  peculiar   circumstances  arising  out
of subsequent events, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to
take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded
to  the   appellants.  We  say   so   because:   first ,  the  parties   to   the   dispute   have
Page  |  7

mutually   buried   their   hatchet.   The   separate   affidavit   of   the   victim   inspires
confidence that the apology has voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of
time and owing to the maturity brought about by age. There is no question
of     the     settlement     being   as   a   result   of   any   coercion   or   inducement.
Considering that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the
same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence. 
14. Second,   at   the   time   of   the   incident,   the   victim   was   a   college   student,
and both appellants too were no older than 20­22 years. The attack was in
pursuance of a verbal altercation during a sports match, with there being no
previous   enmity   between   the   parties.   It   does   raise   hope   that   parties   would
have   grown   up   and   have   mended   their   ways.   Indeed,   in   the   present   case,
fifteen   years   have   elapsed   since   the   incident.   The   appellants   are   today   in
their   mid­thirties   and   present   little   chance   of   committing   the   same   crime.
 
15. Third,   the appellants have no other criminal antecedents, no previous
enmity,   and   today   are   married   and   have   children.   They   are   the   sole   bread
earners of their family and have significant social  obligations to  tend to. In
such circumstances, it might not serve the interests of society to keep them
incarcerated any further. 
16. Finally,   both   appellants   have   served   a   significant   portion   of   their
sentences.   Murali   has   undergone   more   than   half   of   his   sentence   and
Rajavelu has been in jail for more than one year and eight months.
Page  |  8

17. Considering   all   these   unique   factors,   including   the   compromise
between   the   parties,   we   deem   it   appropriate   to   reduce   the   quantum   of   the
sentence   imposed   on   the   appellants.   The   appeals   are,   therefore,   partly
allowed and  sentence  of  both  the  appellants  is  reduced  to  the  period
already   undergone   by   them.   Consequently,   they   are   set   free   and   their   bail
bonds,   if   any,   are   discharged.   Any   pending   applications   are   disposed   of
accordingly.           
………………………………………….. J.
   (N.V. RAMANA)
…………………………………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
…………………..………………………. J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI
DATED :  05­01­2021
Page  |  9