Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a family dispute between two real brothers, appellant no.1 Shankar Harale and respondent no.2 Namdeo Harale, over a boundary of agricultural fields. On 21st May 2009, while the complainant and his sons were at the Tehsil Office, the appellants went to the complainant's hut and had a wordy quarrel with Dhondubai (PW-3) and Kanupatra (PW-4), wife and daughter-in-law of the complainant. During the quarrel, appellant no.2 Vivek pelted stones hitting Dhondubai, and on exhortation by appellant no.1, appellant no.3 Parvatibai set fire to the complainant's house. The trial court convicted all three appellants under Sections 436 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to five years and six months rigorous imprisonment respectively. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that appellant no.2 Vivek was not attributed any overt act of setting fire, and there was no evidence of common intention to invoke Section 34 IPC for the offence under Section 436 IPC. Therefore, his conviction under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside, though his conviction under Section 323 IPC was sustained. For appellants no.1 and 3, the court confirmed their conviction under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the parties had filed a compromise memo, and the complainant, being an aged person, had reconciled with his brother. The court, relying on Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P., held that compromise is a relevant factor for sentence reduction in non-compoundable offences. Accordingly, the sentence of appellants no.1 and 3 under Section 436 IPC was modified to the period already undergone. In view of the compromise, the conviction under Section 323 IPC (a compoundable offence) was set aside for all appellants under Section 320(8) CrPC. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Section 34 IPC - Common Intention - For conviction under Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence of shared common intention to commit the principal offence - Appellant no.2 was not attributed any overt act of setting fire and no evidence of common intention - His conviction under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC set aside (Paras 8-9). B) Criminal Law - Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences - Sentence Reduction - Compromise between parties is a relevant circumstance for reducing sentence even in non-compoundable offences - Following Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 667 - Sentence of appellants no.1 and 3 under Section 436 IPC modified to period already undergone (Paras 10-11). C) Criminal Procedure - Section 320(8) CrPC - Compounding of Offences - Offences compoundable under Section 320 CrPC can be compounded by parties - Conviction under Section 323 IPC (compoundable) set aside for all appellants in view of compromise (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 436 IPC read with Section 34 IPC can be sustained against appellant no.2 who did not participate in setting fire, and whether compromise between parties can reduce sentence in non-compoundable offences
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction of appellant no.2 Vivek under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC set aside; his conviction under Section 323 IPC set aside due to compromise. Conviction of appellants no.1 and 3 under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed but sentence modified to period already undergone; their conviction under Section 323 IPC set aside due to compromise.
Law Points
- Compromise in non-compoundable offences is a relevant factor for sentence reduction
- Section 34 IPC requires common intention for vicarious liability
- Section 320(8) CrPC allows compounding of compoundable offences
