Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In a criminal appeal in the Supreme Court in the case of Murali & Rajavelu v State rep. by the Inspector of Police, the Supreme Court ordered that for the purpose of reduction of quantum of sentence, the fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor. There are two accused in this case where one was convicted under section 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced with three months of rigorous imprisonment whereas the other accused was sentenced with 5 years of rigorous imprisonment as he was convicted under section 307 and 341 of the IPC. The same was upheld by the High Court.
However, when the case was still pending in the Supreme Court, the parties entered into an amicable settlement. It was also noted by the court that according to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, section 324 and 307 of the IPC cannot be compounded as these do not come under the list of compoundable offences.
The bench comprised of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose referred to the judgments Ram Pujan v State of UP [(1973) 2 SCC 456] and Ishwar Singh v State of MP [(2008) 15 SCC 667] where it was held that a compromise between parties was noted to reduce the sentence even in non-compoundable offences.
Furthermore, the court noted that since the accused has served a significant portion of their sentences, they were just 20-22 years old and college student when the incident occurred as pursuance of a verbal altercation during a sports match, they both are now married and have children, they are the sole breadwinners of their family and since they have no previous enmity between them. Considering the same, the court reduced the quantum of the sentence imposed on the appellants.
86540
103860
630
114
59824