Cannot Record Compromise Between Parties In Non-Compoundable Offences; But It's A Factor For Considering Quantum Of Sentence: SC [Read Judgment]

Cannot Record Compromise Between Parties In Non-Compoundable Offences; But It

"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."

The Supreme Court has observed that no permission can be granted to record the compromise between the parties in non-compoundable offences.

The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna, however, noted that, while sentencing the accused for 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.

Manjit Singh, was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years after convicting him under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. During the pendency of the appeal filed by him in the Apex Court, the parties entered into compromise.

In this context, the bench said:

"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"

The bench then ordered his release by reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed from five years/two years to the period already undergone by him.

The court referred to these observations made in the judgment in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, in this case

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 appellantaccused 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.
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."

Click here to Download Judgment

Read Judgment