2021 INSC 0521
   NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).   988   OF 2021
    (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 1516 of 2020)
SY. AZHAR SY. KALANDAR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   appellant,   being   dissatisfied   by   the   judgment   dated
4 th
  January,   2019   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at
Bombay,   Nagpur   Bench,   Nagpur   upholding   the   conviction   of   the
appellant   for   the   offence   under   Section   307   Indian   Penal
Code(hereinafter being referred to as “IPC”) and directed him to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/­
1

with   clause   of   sufferance   in   default   of   three   months’   rigorous
imprisonment, has preferred this instant appeal.
3. The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   Gajanan   Kute   complainant
lodged oral report Exhibit­49 with Police Station Ansing on 11 th
  May,
2016   contending   that   Chintaman   Dange   is   his   maternal   uncle   and
very   active   in   social   work.     Previously   the   appellant   had   a   quarrel
with   Chintaman   Dange   (injured)   because   of   unlawful   construction
raised on Nal Saheb Baba Darga prior to 4­5 months to the incident.
On   11 th
  May,   2016,   when   a   Sandal   procession   at   Ansing   reached
Gandhi Chowk at about 7.30 p.m., unknown persons entered into the
procession   and   the   present   appellant   along   with   his   two   other
associates   with   a   sharp­edged   weapon   stabbed   on   the   stomach   of
Chintaman Dange with intent to kill him.   The complainant took the
injured   to   the   hospital   for   treatment.     On   his   report,   P.S.O.   Ansing
registered   Crime   No.80/2016   for   an   offence   under   Section   307   read
with Section 34 IPC against the accused appellant and other accused
persons   vide   Exhibit   50.     After   investigation,   the   charge­sheet   was
filed   under   Section   307   read   with   Section   34   IPC.     After   framing   of
charge for the afore­stated offence, the appellant faced the trial.  
2

4. Relying   on   the   testimony   of   PW   7   Chintaman   Dange   (injured
victim) and of the treating Doctor Arvind Kisanrao Adhe (PW11) which
was   held   to   be   unimpeachable   and   stellar,   the   learned   trial   Judge
held   the   appellant   guilty   and   convicted   him   for   offence   punishable
under   Section   307   IPC   to   suffer   rigorous   imprisonment   for   10   years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/­ with default to suffer further three
months’   rigorous   imprisonment   by   a   judgment   dated   23 rd
  February,
2018. 
5. Unsatisfied by the judgment of the learned trial Judge dated 23 rd
February   2018,   the   accused   preferred   appeal   before   the   Nagpur
Bench of High Court of Bombay which, after hearing the parties came
to  be dismissed by  the  judgment  impugned dated 4 th
  January, 2019
assailed in the instant appeal.
6. The record of the case elicits that the finding of both the Courts
are concurrent and without fault.  The appellant has not been able to
mount an effective challenge founded upon a question of law and the
learned counsel has very fairly restricted his prayer qua reduction of
sentence   only   which   reveals  from   the   order   passed  by   this  Court   on
14 th
  February, 2020.   By a further order dated 30 th
  July 2021, PW 7
3

Chintaman   Dange(injured   victim)   was   directed   to   be   impleaded   as
party   respondent.     Pursuant   thereto,   he   was   impleaded   as   party   to
the present appeal.
7. A   joint   affidavit   has   been   filed   during   the   pendency   of   the
proceedings   by   the   wife   of   the   accused   appellant   and   PW   7
Chintaman Dange(injured victim) and it has been stated that they are
residing   in   the   same   village   and   this   unforeseen   incident   has
occurred   on   account   of   some   misconception   and   are   residing
peacefully even after the unfortunate incident has taken place.     The
injured victim has come forward with the request that, as the families
have settled their disputes and almost half of the sentence has been
undergone   by  the  appellant,   it  may   be  considered   to   be   sufficient   in
due   compliance   of   the   judgment   impugned   upholding   conviction
under Section 307 IPC.
8. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   also   the
learned   counsel   for   Chintaman   Dange(injured   victim­respondent   no.
2) and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
9. The   joint   affidavit   placed   on   record   makes   it   clear   that   the
parties,   on   the   advice   of   their   elders,   entered   into   an   amicable
4

settlement.   The appellant has apologized for his fault and has taken
responsibility   for   his   action   and   has   maturely   sought   forgiveness
from   the   victim.     In   return,   the   victim   has   also   voluntarily   accepted
the  apology  while  considering  the  age of the appellant  at  the time of
the incident and has forgiven him and has come forward without any
reservation to settle the dispute.
10. Even   during   the   course   of   arguments,   learned   counsel   for   the
injured victim has reiterated the same while making his submissions.
11. In   almost   the   same   circumstances   which   have   been   noticed   by
us, a three Judge Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in  Murali
Vs.   State   represented   by   Inspector   of   Police    1
,   where   the   parties
decided to forgive their past and live amicably, this Court has come to
their   rescue   by   interfering   in   the   quantum   of   sentence   which
obviously   is   not   compoundable   under   Section   320   Cr.P.C.   but   has
interfered since there is no minimum sentence prescribed. This Court
in   Murali (supra),   has   taken   note   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in
Ram   Pujan   and   Others   Vs.   State   of   U.P.    2
     which   was   further
1   2021(1) SCC 726
2   1973(2) SCC 456
5

followed   by   this   Court   in   Ishwar   Singh   Vs.   State   of   M.P.    3
  and   the
later decisions as referred to in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment has
taken   note   of   the   compromise   between   the   parties   to   reduce   the
sentence of the convicts even in serious non­compoundable offences.
The relevant paras are as follows:­
“11.   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 non­compoundable offences.
12.   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   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.”
12. Taking   into   consideration   the   facts   of   the   instant   case   and   the
circumstances arising out of the subsequent events, in our opinion, it
is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum
of   sentence   awarded   to   the   appellant.     We   have   recorded   our
3   2008(15) SCC 667
6

satisfaction,   based   on   the   reasons,   that   the   parties   to   the   dispute
have mutually settled their disputes and buried their past.
13. The   joint   affidavit   inspires   confidence   that   the   apology   as
tendered   by   the   appellant   has   voluntarily   been   accepted   given   the
efflux   of   time   and   is   not   a   result   of   any   coercion   or   inducement.
Considering   that   they   are   residing   in   the   same   village   and   are
peacefully residing after the uncalled for incident has taken place, in
our view, this appears to be a fit case for reduction of sentence.
14. Considering   the   overall   facts   on   record   and   other   mitigating
factors   and   circumstances   in   which   a   crime   has   been   committed
including   the   nature   of   injury,   period   during   which   he   remained
under medical treatment, mental agony which the victim suffered and
also   the   compromise   entered   into   between   the   parties,   while
upholding conviction under Section 307 IPC, we deem it appropriate
to   reduce   the  quantum   of  sentence   imposed  on  the  appellant   to   five
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/­ and in
default of payment of fine shall suffer further three months’ rigorous
imprisonment.  Ordered accordingly.
7

15. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
8