2021 INSC 0540
REPORTABLE
     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).  1039  OF 2021
    (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 7001 of 2021)
         (Diary No. 14956/2021)
BHAGWAN NARAYAN GAIKWAD ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against  the judgment and  order
dated   10 th
  June,   2021   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Bombay   in
Criminal   Appeal   No.   136   of   1996   upholding   conviction   for   the
offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous   imprisonment   for   5   years   with   a   fine   of   Rs.   10,000/­   and
1

under   Section   357   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure(CrPC)   of   Rupees
Two Lakhs as a monetary compensation to the victim.
3. The prosecution case is that on 13 th
 December 1993, at around
5.30  p.m.,   Subhash   Yadavrao   Patil(injured   victim)   was   returning   to
Malegaon   from   Tembhurni   on   bicycle.     While   he   was   near   to   the
main road, the accused persons arrived there in the tractor and they
started pelting stone at him.   The stone hit his back and one of the
accused gave a blow of  Satur  on his leg below the left knee.  While he
started   running,   he   fell   down   and   the   present   accused   appellant
gave   blow   by   lethal   weapon(sword)   on   his   right   leg   below   the   knee
and due to the brutal blow, it was almost mutilated and while trying
to   avoid   the   blow   of   sickle,  the   injured  tried  to   avoid   by   raising   his
right   hand   and   the   blow   hit   his   right   arm   below   the   elbow   due   to
which   it   was   detached   and   there   was   profuse   bleeding   from   the
injuries   and   he   was   immediately   taken   to   the   hospital   for   medical
assistance.
4. Dr.   Vijay   Shivram   Upase(PW   8)   who   examined   the   victim
deposed that when the patient was brought to the hospital, his lower
right leg below knee was completely detached and severed and right
2

arm below the elbow was hanging by the skin.  He had bandaged the
injuries   only   to   stop   bleeding   and   cover   the   wounds.     That   all   the
vessels of the veins were open and arteries of injury no. 1 and 4 were
cut.     There   was   profuse   bleeding   and   without   immediate   medical
intervention, the cumulative effect of all the injuries suffered by the
victim   would   have   resulted   into   death.     Injury   nos.   1   and   4   were
dangerous to life.
5. The   injuries   were   not   only   brutal   but   the   injured   was   left   in
such   a   critical   condition   that   upon   seeing   him,   PW   22   had
immediately   arranged   for   recording   his   dying   declaration   by   Dr.
Pawale(PW   12)   Special   Executive   Magistrate.     PW   22   further   stated
that   it   would   be   only   the   strong   will   of   the   victim   and   with   the
immediate   medical   care   that   he   could   survive.     The   medical
certificate­Ex.59   issued   by   the   Primary   Health   Centre,   Tembhurni,
shows the injuries as follows:­
“i.   Sharp   amputated   curt   over   right   lower   leg   1/3 rd
.   It   was
completely cut.
ii.   Incised   wound   over  ½	  above   injury   no.1   front   part,   size   4
½	
” x 	½	”.
iii. Incised wound 	
½	 % above injury No.1 outer side, 1”x 	¼	”. 
iv.   Sharp   amputated   cut   over   1”   below   right   fore   arm,   middle
part, arm completely cut.
3

v. Incised abrasion left side back of ear ¼	” x 	¼	”.  
6. Initially, 12 accused persons faced the trial and were convicted
by the learned trial Judge for offence punishable under Section 326
read   with   Section   149   IPC   for   causing   grievous   hurt   to   Subhash
Yadavrao   Patil(PW­7)   and   each   of   them   was   sentenced   to   suffer   7
years   R.I.   and   fine   in   sum   of   Rs.   1000/­   each,   in   default,   to   suffer
R.I.   for   the   period   of   six   months   by   judgment   dated   26 th
  February,
1996.     On   appeal   being   preferred   collectively   by   all   the   12   accused
persons,   the   High   Court   under   its   impugned   judgment   dated   10 th
June,   2021   found   the   accused   A3,   A4,   A10   and   A12   including   the
present appellant(A1) guilty  and because of lack of material against
the other accused persons, they were acquitted under the impugned
judgment.     The   appeal   stood   abated   in   respect   of   four   accused
persons, A3, A4, A10 and A12. 
7. The submission made before the High Court by learned counsel
for   the   appellant   was   that   the   incident   is   of   the   year   1993   and   the
appellant was on bail during trial and also pending appeal before the
High Court and to revert back to suffer substantive sentence after 28
4

years   would   be   unjustified   but   his   contention   was   repelled   after
assigning reasons in the impugned judgment:­
“30.   It   was   the   specific   submission   by   the   respective   counsel
appearing   for   the   appellants   that   the   incidence   is   of   the   year   1993
and   that   the   appellants   are   on   bail   since   1996   and   that,   to   revert
them   back   to   suffer   substantive   sentence   would   be   unjustified   after
23 years. However, the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the
complainant has survived in the hope of justice with a prosthetic arm
and leg for all these years and his hand and leg had to be amputated.
35. The victim has been crippled for life. It is true that he is pursuing
his   daily   chores   with   a   prosthetic   arm   and   leg   but   he   has   lost   his
vital   organs   of   his   body.   The   doctors   who   had   examined   PW7   have
clearly stated that in the absence of immediate treatment, the death
was certain. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the victim
which is duly corroborated by the PW8.”
8. This   was   the   primary   reason   for   which   while   upholding
conviction   under   Section   326   IPC,   the   appellant   is   sentenced   to
rigorous   imprisonment   for   5   years   and   to   pay   under   Section   357
CrPC of Rs. 2 lakhs as a monetary compensation to the victim.
9. The   application   for   exemption   from   surrendering   was   rejected
by   the   learned   Chamber   Judge   by   an   Order   dated   14 th
  July,   2021.
Only   thereafter, the  appellant  has surrendered on  5 th
  August  2021.
It   is   informed   to   this   Court   that   he   has   undergone   the   actual
sentence by this time of 5 months.
10. The   record   indicates   that   no   notice   was   issued   by   this   Court
and   when   the   matter   was   listed   for   admission,   Mr.   Mahesh
5

Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the appellant has not argued
on   merits   and   confined   his   submission   for   compounding   the
sentence   for   the   reason   that   a   compromise   has   been   entered
between the appellant and the injured victim and in support thereof,
a compromise affidavit of the victim dated 13 th
  July, 2021 has been
placed on record to justify that the victim has no desire to make the
appellant   undergo   the   remaining   sentence   and   keeping   in   view   the
peace   and   harmony   between   the   families,   it   has   been   requested   by
the   complainant   victim   to   compound   the   offence   and   submits   that
the appellant be released on the sentence undergone.
11. Learned   senior   counsel   on   the   strength   of   the   compromise
affidavit placed on record submits that when the parties have settled
their   disputes   amicably   and   the   relations   of   the   families   are   very
cordial   and   they   are   now   closely   related   having   matrimonial
relations with each other’s family and the incident has occurred due
to misunderstanding and on the spur of the moment and submitted
that   the   parties   have   jointly   prayed,   in   the   interest   of   peace   and
harmony   between   both   the   families   and   as   requested   by   the
complainant to compound the offence and in the interest of justice,
6

he   may   be   released   on   the   sentence   undergone   and   has   placed
reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Ram   Pujan   and   Others
Vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh    1
  and  Murali  Vs.  State represented by
Inspector of Police    2
.
12. Learned counsel for the complainant has joined hands with the
appellant   and   submits   that   a   joint   affidavit   has   been   filed   by   the
injured   complainant(PW­7)   and   he   has   been   instructed   to   inform
this   Court   that   in   terms   of   Para   3   of   the   affidavit   of   the   injured
victim,   the   parties   have   restored   their   cordial   relations   and   also
prays   that   the   appellant   be   released   on   the   period   of   sentence
undergone.
13. Per   contra,   Mr.   Sachin   Patil,   learned   counsel   for   the   State
opposed   the   request   made   by   the   appellant   and   submits   that   the
ultimate object of the criminal justice system is to protect the society
and   to   deter   the   criminal   in   achieving   the   avowed   object   of   law   by
imposing appropriate sentence.  It is always expected that the courts
would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence
which   reflects   the   conscience   of   the   society   and   the   sentencing
1   1973(2) SCC 456
2   2021(1) SCC 726
7

process has to be stern where it should be and proceeding on such
premise,   of   alleged   compromise   obtained   after   the   impugned
judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated   10 th
  June,   2021   upholding
conviction under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years
of   rigorous   sentence,   such   compromise   after   28   years   of   the
incident,   according   to   him,   is   obtained   by   coercion   or   inducement
not only  to harm the criminal justice system but it undermines the
public confidence of the efficacy of law and society.
14. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   learned   trial   Judge
and also the High Court, while imposing sentence, has taken note of
the   nature   of   the   incident,   their   related   factors   in   which   the   crime
has   been   committed   and   has   delicately   balanced   the   relevant
circumstances in a dispassionate manner which ordinarily is not to
be interfered because of the alleged compromise being obtained and
cordial   relations   overnight   are   developed   after   28   years   of   the
incident.
15. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   the   incident   is   of   13 th
December 1993, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused by its
judgment dated 26 th
 February, 1996 and appeal was preferred before
8

the   High   Court   at   the   instance   of   the   appellant   in   the   year   1996
which came to be decided in June, 2021, and the appellant was on
bail   throughout,   cordial   relations   between   the   families   never   came
forward but only after conviction has been upheld and the appellant
now   has   to   undergo   sentence,   such   compromise   affidavit   has   been
placed   on   record   to   justify   in   avoiding   sentence   which   ordinarily
attaches   no   credence   and   submits   that   the   compromise   affidavits
which are being filed, its bonafide and genuineness is to be recorded
in   the   facts   of   each   case   and   submits   that   looking   to   the   injury   of
permanent   disability   which   the   complainant   has   suffered,   the
present appellant despite a shield of compromise on record deserves
no indulgence.
16. We   have   given   our   thoughtful   consideration   to   the   arguments
advanced on behalf of the parties and with their assistance perused
the material available on record.
17. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   offence   punishable   under   Section
326 IPC is non­compoundable as per Section 320 CrPC.  The case of
the prosecution is that the appellant attacked the injured victim(PW­
7) with a lethal weapon(sword) which had caused permanent nature
9

of disability and the brutality is apparent on the face of record.   His
right arm and leg were chopped off during the course of crime which
occurred on 13 th
 December, 1993.  It was only because of the strong
will and immediate medical treatment extended to the victim that he
could survive.   It was even stated by the treating Doctor that in the
absence of immediate medical treatment, his death was certain.
18.   After going through the record of the case and the concurrent
finding   of   fact   which   has   been   recorded   by   the   learned   trial   Judge
and   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment,
although no submissions have been made by the learned counsel for
the   appellant   on   merits   of   the   matter   but   still   for   our   own
satisfaction, we have gone through the record and in our considered
view,   the   appellant   has   been   rightly   held   guilty   and   convicted   for
offence under Section 326 IPC.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his submission
only   for   sentencing   taking   defence   of   the   compromise   dated   13 th
July, 2021 entered into between the parties but the fact is that after
he   has   been   convicted   under   Section   326   IPC   and   sentenced   to   5
years   rigorous   imprisonment   under   the   impugned   judgment   of   the
10

High Court dated 10 th
  June 2021, all such family relations came on
the   ground   and   he   has   hardly   undergone   5   months   of   sentence   as
on the date as informed to this Court.
20.   This   Court   considers   it   appropriate   to   extract   para   3   of   the
compromise   affidavit   filed   by   the   victim   dated   13 th
  July,   2021   as
follows:­
“3.   That   the   deponent   further   submits   that   the   incident   in   question
took   place   on   13/12/1993   i.e.,   almost   before   28   years   due   to
misunderstanding   and  in  the  spur  of  moment.  The  petitioner  and  the
deponent to the same clan and they all have in same Village and with
passage of time, the relations between the petitioner and the deponent
have   become   very   cordial.   The   petitioner   and   the   deponent   are   now
very   closely   related   and   are   having   matrimonial   relations   with   each
other family. The petitioner’s and deponent’s families participate in the
functions   of   each   other’s.   With   the   huge   time   gap,   the   grudges
amongst   each   other   have   vanished   away   and   have   taken   a   shape   of
friendship.   The   petitioner   is   65   year   old   person   suffering   from   heart
disease   and   requires   medical   help   and   attention   regularly.   They   have
old   age   parents   wife   and   children   to   look   after,   their   entire   family
would suffer irreparable loss if the petitioner go behind the bars at this
stage. The petitioner has suffered imprisonment at the time of trial as
well as after conviction till the time bail was granted to him by the trial
court and high court. The deponent does not have a slightest desire to
make the petitioner undergo the remaining sentence. Therefore, in the
interest of both the parties and so also in the interest of the peace and
harmony   between   both   the   families,   the   complainant   has   filed   this
affidavit permission to compound the offence.”
21. The   three­Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Ram   Pujan   and
Others (supra)   and   Murli (supra)   has   recorded   its   satisfaction   that
the   compromise   has   not   been   obtained   out   of   coercion   and
11

inducement   and   entered   with   free   will   without   any
reservation/caveat   certainly   be   acted   upon   and   can   be   one   of   the
mitigating   factor   to   be   considered   by   altering   the   sentence   in
question.
22. We are in full agreement on legal principles and on facts which
has   been   noticed   by   this   Court   in   the   judgment   referred   to   supra.
But we are not being able to record our satisfaction on the contents
of   the   compromise   which   has   been   obtained   overnight   after
conviction under Section 326 IPC being confirmed by the High Court
under the impugned judgment for the incident of December 1993.
23. The   substance   of   what   has   been   referred   to   in  paragraph   3  of
the   compromise   and   noticed   by   us,   the   statement   of   fact   is
completely   superfluous   in   the   mechanical   form   and   nothing   elicit
about the earlier relations, if any, or when such cordial relations or
what kind of family relations later on have been developed, all such
facts   are   completely   missing   and   the   contents   are   stereotyped,
appears   to   be   copied   from   paragraph   6   of   the   judgment   in   Mohd.
Ibrahim   Vs.   State of Karnataka and Others (Criminal Appeal No.
825 of 2018) decided by this Court on 5 th
 July, 2018. 
12

24. In the recent judgment in  Murali  (supra), this Court has taken
into   consideration   not   only   the   compromise   but   the   other
aggravating   and   mitigating   circumstances   in   which   the   crime   has
been   committed  including   the   fact   that   the   accused   has   undergone
more   than   half   the   sentence   and   in   totality   of   the   facts   and
circumstances, this Court has interfered and molded the sentence.
25. In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   given   case,   for   deciding
just   and   appropriate   sentence   to   be   awarded   for   an   offence,   the
aggravating   and   mitigating   factors   and   circumstances   of   which   the
crime has been committed are to be taken into consideration and to
be delicately balanced on the basis of the relevant circumstances in
a dispassionate manner by the Court.
26. While   disposing   of   the   appeal   preferred   at   the   instance   of   the
present appellant, the High Court has recorded its sufficient reasons
while   convicting   him   under   Section   326   IPC   and   not   only   the   fact
that   it   was   a   pre­meditated   attempt   of   the   appellant,   he   assaulted
the   victim   with   the   sword   and   chopped   of   his   right   leg   below   the
knee   and   right   forearm   below   the   elbow   and   the   brutality   is
apparent on the face of record.
13

27. This   Court   cannot   be   oblivious   of   this   fact   that   the   injured
victim has been crippled for life and pursuing his daily  chores with
the prosthetic arm and leg and has lost vital organs of the body and
became permanently disabled.  This has been stated by PW 8 that in
the   absence  of   immediate  medical   attention,   death   was   certain   and
that was the reason his dying declaration was also recorded during
that point of time, in our considered view, such a brutality cannot be
ignored which is not against the individual but the crime is against
the society which has to be dealt with sternly.
28. Giving   punishment   to   the   wrongdoer   is   the   heart   of   the
criminal   delivery   system,   but   we   do   not   find   any   legislative   or
judicially   laid   down   guidelines   to   assess   the   trial   Court   in   meeting
out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he
is   held   guilty   of   the   charges.     Nonetheless,   if   one   goes   through   the
decisions   of   this   Court,   it   would   appear   that   this   Court   takes   into
account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion
in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.
29. The compromise if entered at the later  stage of the incident or
even   after   conviction   can   indeed   be   one   of   the   factor   in   interfering
14

the   sentence   awarded   to   commensurate   with   the   nature   of   offence
being   committed   to   avoid   bitterness   in   the   families   of   the   accused
and the victim and it will always be better to restore their relation, if
possible, but the compromise cannot be taken to be a solitary basis
until   the   other   aggravating   and   mitigating   factors   also   support   and
are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence which always
has   to   be   examined   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   on
hand.
30. As   already   observed,   we   have   not   be   able   to   record   our
satisfaction   in   reference   to   the   kind   of   compromise   which   has   now
been   obtained   and   placed   on   record   after   28   years   of   the   incident
and this Court cannot be oblivious of the sufferings which the victim
has suffered for such a long time and being crippled for life and the
leg   and   arm   of   the   victim   are   amputated   in   the   alleged   incident
dated 13 th
  December,  1993 and  since then he  has  been  fighting  for
life   and   is   pursuing   his   daily   chores   with   a   prosthetic   arm   and   leg
and   has   lost   his   vital   organs   of   his   body   and   became   permanently
disabled and such act of the appellant is unpardonable.
15

31. In   totality   of   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   we   are
not inclined to give any benefit of the alleged compromise dated 13 th
July, 2021 for interfering in the sentence awarded by the High Court
in   the   impugned   judgment   which   at   least   does   not   call   for
interference of this Court.
32. As a result, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.
33. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………………..J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
16