Madhya Pradesh High Court
Banti Kansana @ Keshav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
DB :- HON'BLE JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &
HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRDESH, JJ
ON THE 3rd JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5640 OF 2024
BANTI KANSANA @ KESHAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Dwivedi- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Pooran Kulshrestha- Additional Advocate General for respondent/State.
Ms. Kajal Tundelkar- Advocate for complainant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Per Hirdesh, J:
The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C has been
preferred by appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.04.2024
passed by Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.
13 of 2022 whereby, appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and
further sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment under
Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act with fine of Rs.500/- and u/S.27 of
Arms Act, three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- with
default stipulations respectively. All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
(2) In nutshell, case of prosecution is that on 04.11.2021, Rishab
Chaurasiya (PW-1) gave oral information to Police Station Madhoganj,
2
Gwalior that on 03.11.2021 around 10.30 in the night, his brother Pankaj
Prahalad Pal was making sweets along-with Bhola Tomar and Hari Singh.
At that time, present appellant- accused Banti came there and asked for beer
to him. When he refused, accused Banti started abusing him in filthy
language and also slapped him. After 10 minutes, appellant came with a
country made gun (katta) and again started abusing him. When he objected,
accused Banti with an intention to kill fired a gun shot on him. Bullet hit
near his left rips causing him to fell down. On screaming, the shop owner’s
nephew- Sunil came and took Pankaj to hospital for his treatment. On such
allegations, Police Station Madhoganj registered FIR at Crime No.478/2021
for offence punishable under Sections 294 and 307 of IPC. During
investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Relevant seizures
were made. Accused was arrested. One country-made gun was seized at the
instance of present appellant. Thereafter, offence punishable under Sections
25 & 27 of Arms Act was enhanced. Charge-sheet was filed and case was
committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
(3) The trial Court framed charges. Appellant abjured guilt and pleaded
for innocence. Thereafter, the trial Court took evidence of prosecution and
defence and after hearing arguments of both the parties, convicted and
sentenced appellant for the alleged offences, as stated above in Para 1 of his
judgment.
(4) Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, appellant has filed instant appeal on various grounds.
(5) On behalf of appellant and complainant I.A.No.17216 of 2024 &
I.A.No.17217 of 2024, applications under Section 320(1) of CrPC and
320(2) of CrPC have been filed for compounding of offences on the basis of
compromise.
3
(6) In compliance of order dated 09.04.2025, this Court had directed both
the parties to appear and ink down their identity and intent for compromise
before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 24.01.2025. The Principal
Registrar was also directed to use video Conferencing/ electronic mode to
verify factum of compromise from accused. The compromise was verified
and a report has been submitted by Principal Registrar on 01.05.2025 that
appellant/accused and complainant Rishab Chaurasiya (PW-1) & injured
Pankaj Chaurasiya (PW-2) have entered into compromise with mutual
consent. Now, there is no dispute remaining between them. But, as per
aforesaid report, offence under Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable.
(7) Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that so far as sentence is
concerned, appellant has already undergone jail sentence from 04.11.2024
to 16.06.2022 and further, from the date of judgment i.e. 13.04.2024, he is
in jail till today (total custody period almost one year and ten months). It is
submitted that since compromise has been arrived at between the parties,
therefore, the jail sentence as awarded by Trial Court may be reduced to the
period already undergone by enhancing fine amount on the basis of
compromise.
(8) Learned counsel for respondent/State has opposed the prayer of
appellant, however, the learned counsel for complainant has no objection
and fairly admitted that they have entered into compromise in the case with
appellant.
(9) Nevertheless, the appellant has not challenged the merits of case in
regard to conviction and only confined his argument to quantum of sentence
as regards sentencing appellant on the basis of compromise but still, this
Appellate Court is of the view to examine sanctity of conviction. On this
aspect, we have gone through the judgment of trial Court. The prosecution
4
case is not only fortified by eye-witnesses including injured, but also well-
supported by medical evidence and documentary evidence adduced before
Trial Court. In view of evidence produced by prosecution, conclusion of the
trial Court regarding conviction appears to be sound-reasoning, therefore, it
does not warrant any inference. Accordingly, finding with regard to
conviction under Section 307 of IPC and under the Arms Act is hereby
confirmed.
(10) Now, the Court is turning to sentence part of non-compoundable
offence under Section 307 of IPC and the effect of compromise placed by
parties.
(11) Relying on various judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr, 2014 (6)
SCC 466 permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and
quashed the criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Para No.21
has observed as under:-
“21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court
commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In
Dimpey Gujral case(supra), FIR was lodged under sections
147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated
and final report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that stage,
settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted the
settlement and quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment
of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR SCW
5333 wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under section
482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation and the
guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or (2) to prevent
abuse of process of the court. While doing so, commenting upon the
offences stated in the FIR, the court observed:
“Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature
and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned
counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any possibility of a
settlement. We are happy to note that due to efforts made by learned
counsel, parties have seen reason and have entered into a compromise.”
This Court, thus, treated such offences including one under section 307,
IPC were of a personal nature and not offences against the society.”
5
(12) Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at the
stage of appeal before this Court. On this aspect, the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh [AIR 2009 SC 675] is worth to be quoted here, 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.”
(13) On this point, the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala 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 vs. State of M.P. and Ors.,
1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213,
Puttaswamy vs. 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
noncompoundable 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.”
(14) Even, this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The
State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A.
No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya
Pradesh) decided on 18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram singh
vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019, Sohan Jangu &
others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRA No.550/2023 on
11.07.2023, has taken a similar view.
(15) On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote extract of the
6
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan
Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC)
which is as under:-
“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 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 6 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
andcircumstances of the case on hand.”
(16) As the offence under Sections 307 of IPC is non-compoundable
under Section 320 of CrPC, it is not possible to pass judgment of acquittal
on the basis of compromise, but it is by now well-settled that such a
compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence. So far as
conviction of appellant under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act is
concerned, minimum sentence is prescribed for one year.
(17) In view of aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court, since
appellant has already undergone jail sentence of approximately one year and
ten months, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the appellant in
jail further even after the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Therefore, while maintaining conviction under Section 307 of IPC and
Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act, the jail sentence awarded by Trial
Court is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine
amount to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. On adjustment of fine amount imposed
7
by trial Court (if fine amount is deposited), Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited
in favour of Juvenile Justice Fund having Saving Bank Account
No.60411029562 of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Govindpura, Bhopal,
IFSC Code MAHB0001988 (a statutory fund created for the welfare of
juveniles), Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited with High Court Legal Services
Committee, Gwalior and remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be given
to injured victim Pankaj Chaurasiya (PW-2) as compensation. Aforesaid
enhanced fine amount shall be deposited within a period of two months
from today.
(18) Appellant is reported to be in jail. Subject to deposit of enhanced fine
amount, appellant shall be released from concerned jail if he is not required
in any other offence. In case, appellant fails to deposit the enhanced fine
amount within the aforesaid stipulated period of two months, he shall
undergo further six months’ additional imprisonment as awarded by Trial
Court.
(19) In view of aforesaid modification, instant appeal stands disposed of.
(20) A copy of this judgment along-with record be sent to Trial Court
concerned as well as a copy of this judgment be sent to the Jail Authority
concerned for necessary information and compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
MAHEN Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
DRA
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=8c6d4d6122d7ee987e457a3bec5
922cacbc050c998981397a35d9758a2b550
74, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
BARIK
serialNumber=AB90F893988F10D718DA01
F8065D87F25DDC9B6C8C3FF0E5E280DD3
6D476F6BA, cn=MAHENDRA BARIK
Date: 2025.07.05 13:10:24 +05'30'
[ad_1]
Source link