Kailash @ Kaluram @ Kalu vs State Of Rajasthan … on 17 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Kailash @ Kaluram @ Kalu vs State Of Rajasthan … on 17 April, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:18789-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 232/2024

Kailash @ Kaluram @ Kalu S/o Sh. Jogaram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Janiyobn Ki Dhani, Uchiyaarda Ps Banar Dist. Jodhpur
Raj. (Presently Lodge In Central Jail Jodhpur)
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
                                   Mr. Raghunath Bishnoi
                                   Mr. Bhikha Ram Bishnoi



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

17/04/2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that a

compromise has been reached between the parties regarding the

conviction under Section 307/34, 326, and Section 3/25 of the

Arms Act. They further submit that the parties in close relation.

The details of the compromise, which has been brought on record,

reflect the relationship between the parties, and are reproduced as

follows:-

01- ;g gS fd ifjoknh i{k ,oa vfHk;qDrx.k dSyk”k mQZ
dkyqjke mQZ dkyw ,oa fyPNkjke mQZ y{e.k ,d gh
ifjokj ds lxs ppsjs HkkbZ gS] gekjs ,oa vfHk;qDrx.k
ds ifjokj ds chp xkao esa eqf[k;ku ds le{k yksd
vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks x;k gS] rFkk nksuks
ifjokjksa ds chp py jgs fookn dks [kRe dj fy;k]

(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:29:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18789-DB] (2 of 4) [CRLAD-232/2024]

rFkk “kkafr ls jg jgs gSA eq> vkgr “kSrkujke dks
yxh xksyh fdlds ?kj ls pyh] o fdl rjQ ls
vk;h] eq>s irk ugha pyk FkkA vc pwfa d gekjs nksuks
ifjokjksa ds chp xkao esa vkilh yksd vnkyr dh
Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks x;k gS] ge bl eqdnes dks
vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrs gSA

2. The counsel for the parties further submit that without going

into the merits of the case, the Court may consider reducing the

sentence in accordance with the prevailing law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjeet Singh v. The State

of Punjab & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2019 arising out of

SLP No. 82 of 2018. The relevant portion of the judgment is

reproduced as follows:

(6) Section 307 I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence. No
permission can be granted to record the compromise
between the parties. In Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667, the Supreme Court of India
has held that in a non-compoundable offence the
compromise entered into between the parties is indeed a
relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind
for considering the quantum of sentence. In Paras (13)
and (14) of the judgment in Ishwar Singh (supra) this
Court has held as under:

“13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9
SCC 255, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001)
10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008)
15 SCC 671, this Court, while taking into account
the fact of compromise between the parties,
reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-
accused 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 such offence was ordered to be
compounded.

(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:29:59 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:18789-DB] (3 of 4) [CRLAD-232/2024]

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
sentence, the factum of compromise between the
parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the
Court may keep in mind.”

(7) As noted earlier, in the present case the appellant-
accused, Manjit Singh, has been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for five years. The appellant is said to have
served seventeen months of imprisonment. Taking note of
the compromise entered into between the parties and
considering the relationship of the parties and the facts
and circumstances of the case and also the sentence
undergone by the appellant-accused, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed upon the appellant under Sections
307 and 324 I.P.C. is reduced from five years/two years to
the period already undergone by him. The appellant is
ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is
required in any other case. In view of the compromise
entered into between the parties, the fine amount of
Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the appellant is set aside. If
the said fine amount has already been paid, the same
shall be refunded to the appellant-Manjit Singh.

3. The counsel pointed out that the appellant has undergone

actual custody for a period of four years as of 2020, resulting in a

total custody duration of approximately four and a half years. The

custody report is on record and indicates that, as of 21.10.2024,

the appellant had completed four years, one month, and two days

of custody.

4. The Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the matter on its

merits but is, at the same time, unable to refute the applicability

of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of

(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:29:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18789-DB] (4 of 4) [CRLAD-232/2024]

Manjeet Singh (supra). Therefore, this Court, relying on the

judgments in Manjeet Singh and Ishwar Singh, finds that in the

peculiar factual matrix where both parties are closely related and

have entered into a considered compromise, this is a fit case

where the sentence can be revisited by the Court.

5. Thus, taking note of the compromise entered into between

both parties, considering the custody report, the facts and

circumstances of the case, and the sentence already undergone by

the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the

period already undergone, which is approximately four years and

six months. The appellant is ordered to be released, unless

required in connection with any other case. In view of the

compromise entered into between the parties, the fine amount is

also set aside.

6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

7. Upon the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the

application for the suspension of sentence as well as the

application for taking the compromise on record are also disposed

of.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
12-mohit/love-

(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:29:59 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)