1. Since both the appeals are arising out of same S.T.No.71/2011, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No.71 of 2011 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/149 (on three counts), 324/149 (on three counts), 323/149 of IPC (on six counts), 147 and 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-, 3 months SI, 1 month SI on each count, 1 month SI and 3 months SI respectively with default stipulation.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that complainant Kamal Singh @ Chhotu in injured condition lodged a report on 16.04.2010 at police Station, Madhoganj, that at about 21.30 hours on the same day he along with his brother Hemant, Bindu Kushwah, Ballu Kushwah was going in front of the house of Babu Singh Kushwah. At that juncture, accused Munshi Singh, Gopal, Brijesh @ Ballu, Rakesh, Gyani Sikarwar and Rakesh Sikarwar and 2-3 others on account of old enmity with common intention came armed with Lathi and Farsa. Accused Munshi Kushwah, Gopal Kushwah, Ballu Kushwah inflicted Farsa blow on the head to him, Hemant and Bindu with intention to kill and accused Rakesh, Gyani and Rakesh Sikarwar caused Lathi blow. When his father Nehnaram and Kallu came to save, then they were also beaten. His father suffered injuries near left and right eye and left leg and Kallu suffered injury in the finger of left hand. Thereafter the accused persons pelted stones and made fire in air. The incident was witnesses by Sanju Kushwah and others. On the report of the complainant, crime No.175/2010 was registered at police Station, Madhoganj, for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 336, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Gwalior, which committed the case to the Court of Session, from where the case was received by the trial Court for trial.

5. The charges were framed against the accused persons which they denied saying that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case.

6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. The appellants in their defence examined 7 witnesses.

7. After trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, these appeals.

8. Before this Court, both the parties have filed the application for compounding of the offence. Pursuant to order dated 15.11.2018 passed by this Court, Principal Registrar of this Court recorded the statements of complainant/victim Hemant, Nainaram, Vakil, Kallu, Ballu, Kamal Singh and Bindu on 26.11.2018 and verified the correctness and genuineness of the compromise. As per the report, parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion. The complainant and injured have been identified by their counsel.

9. On the basis of the verification report dated 26.11.2018 furnished by the Principal Registrar, this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 and 307/149 of IPC which are not compoundable, therefore, the compromise between the parties is not acceptable.

10. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences, but prays for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by them. It is submitted that appellants Gopal Kushwah, Munshi Singh and Brijesh @ Ballu Kushwah have already suffered about 6 months jail sentence and appellants Rakesh Singh son of Munshi, Rakesh Singh son of Rajendra and Gyani Singh have already suffered about 3 months jail sentence. It is further submitted that compromise has already been entered between the parties and parties have amicably settled their dispute. Both the parties are relative of each other. A cross-case has also been registered in which also a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The appellants have been facing the agony of trial for the last 16 years. Therefore, it is prayed that appellants' jail sentence may be reduced/modified to the period already undergone by them. In view of the existence of a cross-case and that a compromise has already been arrived at between the parties, it is submitted that the present appellants deserve to be treated with leniency and sympathetically.

11. Nevertheless, the appellants have not challenged the merits of the case in regard to conviction and only confined their arguments to the quantum of sentence on the basis of compromise application, but still this Court is of the view to examine sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, this Court has gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the statements of eye-witnesses including complainant and injured, but also well supported by medical and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In view of evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of trial Court regarding conviction appears to be based on sound reasonings, therefore, it does not warrant any inference. Accordingly, the finding with regard to conviction as imposed by trial Court is hereby affirmed.

12. Now, the Court is turning to the sentence part of non-compoundable offences under aforesaid sections and the effect of compromise arrived at between the parties.

13. Relying on various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o f 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 Supreme Court in paragraph 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."

14. 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 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."

15. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 SC 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 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."

16. 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 and in the case of S ohan Jangu & others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRA No.550/2023 on 11.07.2023, has taken a similar view.

17. On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote the excerpt of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme 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 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."

18. As the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 and 307/149 of IPC is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to accept the compromise between the parties, but it is now well settled that such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence. The appellants and the complainant party are living in the same society; they are residing happily for last so many years; they want to live with peace and no criminal antecedents of the appellants have been shown, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

19. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since appellants have already served jail sentence as aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the appellants in jail further, even after the compromise between the parties. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants as imposed by the trial Court, the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them enhancing the fine amount under Section 307/149 of IPC from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5000/- on each count, which shall be deposited before the learned trial Court.

20. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants as imposed by trial Court is hereby maintained and the jail sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them while enhancing the fine amount under Section 307/149 of IPC from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- on each count. The fine amount, if any already deposited by the appellants be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of fine.

21. Accordingly, the criminal appeals stand disposed of to the extent as indicated herein above.

22. Appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall be discharged. However, it is directed that the entire fine amount be deposited by the appellants within a period of 30 days from the date of their release from the jail, failing which they would surrender themselves to serve the remaining part of the jail sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court with default stipulations.

23. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.

24. The order of the trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is hereby affirmed.

25. Let the record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.