Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radhe Ketav (Batham) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANAND PATHAK &
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRI HIRDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3185 OF 2025
RADHE KEVAT (BATHAM) AND ANOTHER
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:-
Shri R. K. Pathak- learned Counsel for appellants.
Shri APS Tomar- learned Counsel for respondent/ State.
Shri Ashutosh Pandey- learned Counsel for complainant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 29th of July, 2025
Delivered on : 25th of August, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Justice Hirdesh pronounced the following
JUDGMENT
Per Justice Hirdesh:
The present matter is taken up and heard finally with the consent of
learned Counsel for the parties at post-lunch session after withdrawal of
suspension application of appellants.
(2) The instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
[hereinafter it would be referred to as ” SC/ST Act”] read with Section
374(2) of CrPC (Section 415 of BNSS) assailing the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 19-03-2025 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities
Act), Datia (MP) in Special Case No. 72 of 2023, by which appellants-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
2
Radhe Kevat and Shyam Kevat have been convicted under Section 307 read
with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for five-five years’
Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000- 10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further undergo one-one year’s Rigorous Imprisonment and
under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, sentenced to undergo for Life
Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000-10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, further undergo one-one year’s Rigorous Imprisonment. Appellant
Radhe Kevat has also been convicted under Section 25(1-b)(A) of the Arms
Act and sentenced to undergo for one year’s Rigorous Imprisonment with
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo one
month’s Rigorous Imprisonment and under Section 27 of the Arms Act,
sentenced to undergo three years’ Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo one month’s
Rigorous Imprisonment respectively. All the sentences given to appellants
have been directed to run concurrently.
(3) Precisely the prosecution case is that on 23-05-2023, complainant
Dharmendra Vanskar (PW-1) got registered a complaint (Dehati Nalishi) in
District Hospital Datia to the effect that on 23-05-2023 at about 03:00-
04:00 pm, he had an altercation with accused Radhe Kevat and Shyam
Kevat over old money transactions. On this account, at around 10:00 pm,
both accused came and stood outside his house and started abusing him in
filthy language by naming his caste ” Barhar Wale”. When he came out and
objected, accused Radhe Kevat fired at him with a country-made katta
(pistol) with intention to kill him. The bullet hit him on the left side below
the chest and blood oozed out. Accused Shyam Kevat assaulted him with a
stick at his back below the waist due to which, he suffered head injury.
Hearing the noise of the fight, when his father Ashok Vanskar came to
intervene, accused Shyam Kevat also assaulted his father on the heel of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
3
right foot with stick. His uncle Jayendra came and intervened. Accused
thereafter fled away by giving a threat that if he went to police station to
report, they would kill him. On the basis of such Dehati Nalishi, FIR at
Crime No. 93 of 2023 was registered against accused Radhe Kevat and
Shyam Kevat at Police Station Goraghat, District Datia for offence
punishable under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506, 325, 34 of IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. Statements of
complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Relevant seizures were
made. Accused were arrested. After completion of investigation and other
formalities, police filed charge sheet against accused before the competent
Court of criminal jurisdiction from where, the case was committed to the
Special Court for trial.
(4) Charges were framed. Accused denied the charges and sought trial.
During trial, their statements under Section 313 of CrPC were recorded in
which, the accused pleaded that they are innocent and they have been
falsely implicated. They did not examine and produce a single witness in
their defence. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as
fourteen witnesses.
(5) The trial Court, after marshalling and appreciating the entire evidence
available on record, found appellants-accused guilty of aforesaid alleged
offences and vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced them, as
stated above.
(6) Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the impugned judgment
passed by trial Court is based on the evidence of unreliable witnesses. It is
further submitted that offence under the Atrocities Act is not made out
against appellants merely on the fact that complainant is a member of
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, unless there is intention or knowledge of
appellants to humiliate or intimidate complainant for the reason that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
4
complainant belongs to such caste and offence committed by appellants was
due to caste of complainant. The allegation of hurling of abuses was over
the old money transaction, not otherwise. Relying on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Others vs. State
(through Standing Counsel) and Another 2008(8) SCC 435, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that one cannot confuse the expression ”place
within public view” with the expression ”public place”, learned Counsel for
the appellants submitted that although as per allegation of complainant that
both accused came and stood outside his house and started abusing him in
filthy language by naming his caste ” Barhar Wale”, but there is no
evidence available on record that the spot of the incident is a public view
because of the fact that no document could be produced by prosecution at
the time of seizure memo to show that said house of complainant was found
to be open and anyone could come and go from there. It is further contended
that except injured witness Dharmendra Vanskar (PW-1), no other eye-
witness has supported the prosecution version. Although there is some
contradiction and omission in the evidence of injured witness Dharmendra
Vanshkar (PW-1) and learned trial Court has acquitted appellants of charge
under Section 325 of IPC on the basis of evidence of said witness, but has
committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellants for alleged
offences. Witnesses of arms seizure did not support the prosecution story.
The sample seal was also not marked on the seizure memo Ex.P14. In such
a situation, offence under the Arms Act is not made out against appellant
Radhe Kevat. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence be set aside.
(7) Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed
contentions of learned Counsel for appellants and submitted that there being
no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the findings arrived at by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
5
Trial Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of this appeal.
(8) The first question falls for consideration is whether the conviction of
appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act can be sustained or not ?
(9) The Atrocities Act was enacted by the Parliament in order to protect
self-respect or honour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and
various measures were adopted to improve socio- economic conditions of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the past days if they are
subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment.
Through spread of education, some awareness has been created amongst
them and they have been trying to assert their rights. Despite various
measures to improve their socio-economic conditions, they remain
vulnerable and they are denied various rights, therefore, they tried to
preserve their self-respect or honour. Object of the Act is as under:-
An Act to prevent the commission of offences of
atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts
for the trial of such offences and for the relief and
rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and
w.e.f. 26th of January, 2016, a new amendment in
Atrocities Act was made .
(10) Amendment Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act reads as under:-
”3(2)(v). Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribes- commits any offence under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) punishment with imprisonment for a term of ten
years or more against a person or property [knowing that such
person is a member of a scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life and with fine.”
(emphasis is underlined)(11) Meaning and scope of intention/knowledge can be gathered from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
6language of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. Same reads as under:-
”intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view”
(12) In order to attract an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act, the accused must not be a member of SC/ST community and
must be shown to have committed offence with the knowledge about
complainant/ victim’s caste or community. In the absence of averment to
that effect, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) would not attract. The word
found in the provision being “knowingly”, an allegation about the assailant’s
knowledge or awareness that the victim is a member of Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe at the time of the commission of atrocity described
under the provision must be there. Without the element of knowledge being
incorporated in the allegations, the offence is unlikely to be attracted.
(13) In the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of
Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557, the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized
that merely because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground for prosecution of accused and
in Para 9 has observed as under :
9. ”Section (3)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any
offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment
for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the
ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present
case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant
committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the
deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To
attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is
that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal
Code is committed against him on the basis that such a personSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
7belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of
such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises.
In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High
Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the
conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as
by the High Court ought to be set aside.”
(14) In the case of Konde Nageshwar Rao vs. A Srirama Chandra
Murty, 2025 INSC 886 (Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2018), the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that in the present scenario, if a person with an oblique
motive to settle the personal scores or to harass individuals, then such act
cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and need to be stopped at the very
outset, so that there is no miscarriage of justice. It has also been observed
that in order to protect self-respect of SC/ST community, the offence alleged
must be committed solely on the basis of victim’s caste status. Merely
because the complainant/victim belongs to the SC/ST community, cannot be
the sole ground for conviction of accused under the SC/ST Act. Misuse of
the statute to settle personal scores or to harass individuals cannot be
permitted if it is apparent. The Court in such a situation, be not hesitant to
step in and stop the said misuse.
(15) Considering the above observations and applying in attending facts
and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the dispute arose
between the complainant and appellants over old-monetary transaction and
not in relation to caste of complainant.
(16) It is not in dispute that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste
category i.e. ”Barhar” whereas, appellants-accused belong to category of
”OBC” i.e. ”Kevat Caste”. As per prosecution allegation, appellants said to
have called the complainant by naming him ” Barhar Wale”.
(17) Now, the question comes before this Court as to whether there was
any intention/knowledge of appellants calling the complainant by his caste,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
8
who is belonging to Scheduled Caste community ?
(18) In the present case, calling of complainant by his caste is admittedly
at the house of complainant where the alleged incident of causing gunshot
fire as well as injury by means of stick to injured/victim regarding old-
monetary transaction had taken place. On the alleged date of incident i.e.
23-05-2023 at around 10:00 pm, although there is allegation that both
accused came and stood outside his house and started abusing him in filthy
language by naming his caste ” Barhar Wale” over old-monetary transaction
between them, but there is no substantive evidence available on record that
there was any intention/knowledge of appellants to humiliate/intimidate/
demoralize the complainant by calling him ”Barhar Wale”. In fact, utterance
is in fact doubtful.
(19) In view of the parameters referred above and the evidence available
on record, it appears that no case is made out involving ingredients of
SC/ST Act under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, against the present
appellants. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting and
sentencing appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Accordingly,
they are acquitted from the charge levelled against them for offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
(20) So far as the conviction of appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC
and the Arms Act is concerned, learned Counsel for complainant submits
that he has no objection and fairly submitted that during pendency of this
appeal, both the parties have filed IA No.13183 of 2025 and 13184 of
2025, applications under Section 320(2) of CrPC/Section 359(2) of BNSS
and Section 320 of CrPC/Section 359 of BNSS along-with their respective
affidavits, stating that both the parties were counselled by the members of
the society and their families and they have voluntarily settled the matter
without any fear or coercion.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
9
(21) Nevertheless, the appellants have not challenged the merits of case in
regard to conviction under Section 302/34 of IPC as well as under the Arms
Act and only confined the arguments to the quantum of sentence as regards
sentencing the appellants on the basis of compromise but still, this
Appellate Court is of the view to examine sanctity of conviction.
(22) On this aspect, we have gone through the judgment of the trial Court.
The prosecution case is not only fortified by eye-witnesses including
injured, (for offence U/s 307/34 of IPC), 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
307/34 of IPC and under the Arms Act is hereby confirmed.
(23) Now, the Court is turning to sentence part of non-compoundable
offence under Section 307/34 of IPC & the Arms Act and the effect of
compromise placed by parties.
(24) 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 5333Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
10wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under
section 482 of the Code are of wide plenitude 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.”
(25) 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.”
(26) 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 non- compoundable
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In someSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
11cases 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.”
(27) 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.
(28) On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote extract of the
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 factors 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 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 beSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
12examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.”
(29) As 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.
(30) So far as the conviction of appellant Radhe Kevat under Sections
25(1-b)(A) and 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, minimum sentence is
prescribed for one year.
(31) In view of aforesaid principles laid down by the Apex Court, since
appellant- Shyam Kevat was remained in custody during trial for a period of
2 months 4 days and from the date of impugned judgment, he is in custody,
that means he has already served more than six months of jail incarceration
whereas appellant Radhe Kevat was remained in custody during trial for a
period of nine months and from the date of impugned judgment, he is in
custody, that means he has already served more than one year of jail
incarceration, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping
them in jail further even after the compromise arrived at between the
parties. As a consequence thereof, IA No. 13183 of 2025 and IA No. 13184
of 2025 are allowed.
(32) Therefore, while maintaining conviction under Section 307/34 of
IPC of appellants Radhe Kevat and Shyam Kewat and conviction of
appellant Radhe Kevat under Sections 25(1-b)(A) & 27 of Arms Act and
maintaining fine amount as awarded by trial Court, the jail sentence
awarded by Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them
by enhancing fine amount to Rs.20,000/- (each) under Section 307/34 of
IPC. On adjustment of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court (if fine
amount is deposited), Rs.40,000/- shall be given to injured complainant-
Dharmendra Vanskar (PW-1) as compensation. The aforesaid enhanced
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
13
fine amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from today.
(33) Appellants are reported to be in jail. Subject to deposit of enhanced
fine amount, appellants shall be released from concerned jail if they are not
required in any other offence. In case, appellants fail to deposit aforesaid
enhanced fine amount within the aforesaid stipulated period of one month,
they shall undergo further additional rigorous imprisonment as awarded by
the Trial Court.
(34) In view of aforesaid modification, instant appeal succeeds and is
allowed in part.
(35) A copy of this judgment along-with record be sent to the Trial Court
concerned as well as a copy of this judgment be sent to the Jail Authority
concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Per Justice Anand Pathak, [Concurring]
(36) I have gone through the judgment written by brother Hirdesh J. The
judgment incorporates all necessary contours of the case. I respectfully
agree with the erudition and views expressed by brother Judge. However, I
wish to add few points in addition to what has already been discussed in the
judgment.
(37) Before proceeding with the case, anatomy of crime is to be kept in
mind. Some crimes give “Psychic Gains” and some crimes give
“Monetary Gains”. Similarly, some crimes are “Intent Driven” whereas
some crimes are “Impulse Driven”. Aims and Objects of the Atrocities Act
and their subsequent amendments indicate that the Act was enacted with the
Aims and Objects to prevent the offence of Atrocities against the members
of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes. Atrocities by very nature
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
14
indicates that it is meant to prevent those crimes, which primarily give
‘Psychic gains’ to the perpetrators or the crime is primarily “Intent
Driven”. Such crimes are motivated and directed towards individuals and
in those cases, individual is the target.
(38) Purpose of the Atrocities Act was to protect members of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes, therefore, in Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act,
different types of offences were mentioned, but to make it more stringent,
Section 3(2) was incorporated. Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act
basically talks about those offences, which are tried to be committed by the
perpetrators to derive ‘psychic gains’, if the accused commits offence of
IPC with the ‘Knowledge’ about the victim/ complainant’s caste/
community.
(39) Many a times, two strangers may also be embroiled in a dispute or
physical violence without knowing each others’ caste. Take example of
road rage, wherein two people riding vehicles may engage in verbal
altercation or physical violence without knowing each others’ caste. In
many cases, monetary dispute and/ or land related dispute between the two
may result into commission of offence without knowing the caste of each
other or even in those disputes, intention of perpetrator/ accused may be of
‘monetary gains’ rather than ‘psychic gains’, therefore, words “with the
Knowledge” is to be deciphered in each and every case independently and
very minutely.
(40) The complainant filed an application for compromise, therefore, it
appears that the dispute arose between the complainant and appellants in
respect of old-monetary transaction and not in relation to caste of
complainant. This fact is affirmed by the application for compromise filed
by the complainant alongwith the appellants during trial. Therefore,
complainant also knew the fact that case was based upon the monetary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
15
dispute and not to humiliate him on caste basis.
(41) The Apex Court in the case of Konde Nageshwar Rao (supra) has
discussed the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of
Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman (supra) and in the case of Dr. Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharasthra and Another (2018) 6
SCC 454 thereafter, came to the conclusion and given guidance
accordingly.
(42) So far as reaching settlement or arriving to compromise at appellate
stage, the Apex Court in the case of Murali Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of
Police, 2021 (1) SCC 726 held as under:-
“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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM
16
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.”
(43) Once appellants are acquitted from the charges levelled against them
for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act then compromise
can be reached between the parties looking to the factors discussed in
different pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred earlier
in the judgment, therefore, while concurring with the views expressed and
discussion made by brother Hirdesh J., the instant appeal stands allowed in
terms mentioned in paragraphs 31 to 35 of the judgment.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 8/26/2025
11:42:58 AM