GOVIND S/O MADANLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. The appellant Govind has challenged his conviction under Section 307 of IPC by judgment dated 19.08.1999 passed by First Additional Session Judge, Mhow in Session Trial No.469/1994, convicting the accused and sentencing him to undergo five years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo an additional sentence of one year simple imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.01.1994 the complainant Rameshchandra was sitting on the platform outside his house accused Govind came with sword and assaulted the complainant on the neck as a result Rameshchandra received injuries, he shouted and fell down. It was further alleged that Govind left the sword and fled away from the spot. Rajesh and Jagdish took the complainant on the scooter to the Madhya Bharat Hospital. The FIR was lodged by the Pyarchand at Police Station Mhow and offence was registered in Crime No.44/94 and the investigation was launched. The accused was put to trial and abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. On trial, learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as herein above and indicated and hence the present appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has not urged the case on merits very vehemently in the light of the fact that it is now more than 17 years since the date of the incident. The parties and the complainant alongwith his Counsel have arrived at compromise which has been filed in writing before me and have also stated that no more grievance remains and they do not wish to pursue the matter any further. Counsel placed reliance on Hasi Mohan Barman and another Vs. State of Assam and another, 2008 1 SCC(Cri) 161 whereby the Apex Court was considered that offcence under Section 313 r/w 34 IPC and held that although it was noncompoundable offence under Section 320 of Cr.PC and compromise could not be recorded under such circumstances, however, the effect of compromise can be taken into consideration for reducing the sentence and the Apex Court has reduced the custodial sentence to the period already undergone; it had maintained conviction 313 of IPC. Also placing the reliance on Bankat & another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 CrLR 17 Counsel stated that the Apex Court was considered the case for offence under Sections 335 & 326 r/w 34 of IPC and the High Court rejected the prayer for compounding and the Apex Court directed that although table SubSection (1) of Sec.320 provides that the offences which are not compoundable, if their dispute is settled outside the Court and the fact that 10 years have elapsed from the date of incident, and the appellants have already undergone several months' imprisonment, ends to meet the interest of justice the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The fine amount of Rs.5000/- each to the accused was imposed and compensation awarded of the injured. Counsel prayed that the same benefit of both the judgments be also given to the present appellant. Counsel has also urged that the appellant Govind was only 26 years of age at the time of incident and hence Counsel prayed that if the Court is satisfied with the conviction, the custodial sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.