Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Arson Case Due to Family Compromise: Shankar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 February 2019

Citation: Criminal Appeal No(s). 390 OF 2019 (Arising out of (Crl.) No(s).9920/2018)

Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Can a family dispute lead to a reduction in sentence for a serious crime like arson? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving brothers and their family. The court considered whether a compromise between the parties could mitigate the punishment for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment highlights the importance of family reconciliation in the Indian legal system, especially when dealing with non-compoundable offenses.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, delivered the judgment. Justice Banumathi authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute between two brothers, Shankar (Appellant No. 1) and Namdeo (Respondent No. 2), who owned adjacent agricultural lands. The conflict escalated on May 21, 2009, when Namdeo, along with his two sons, visited the Tehsil Office. Later that day, Shankar, along with Vivek (Appellant No. 2) and Parvatibai (Appellant No. 3), went to Namdeo’s hut, leading to a heated argument with Dhondubai (PW-3) and Kanupatra (PW-4), Namdeo’s wife and daughter-in-law, respectively. During the altercation, Vivek pelted stones at Dhondubai, causing injuries, and Parvatibai, allegedly at Shankar’s instigation, set fire to Namdeo’s house. Subsequently, Namdeo filed a complaint, leading to the appellants being charged under Sections 436 (arson), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, based on the testimonies of Dhondubai (PW-3) and Kanupatra (PW-4), and the medical evidence provided by Dr. Dattarao Mirzapure (PW-8), convicted the appellants under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (common intention) and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to five years and six months of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The High Court upheld this conviction and sentence. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house, etc. It states, “Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section pertains to voluntarily causing hurt. It states, “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The case also refers to Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which allows for the compounding of certain offenses with the permission of the court.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Appellants’ Submission:
  • The appellants argued that there was a compromise between them and the complainant, Namdeo (Respondent No. 2).
  • They requested the court to consider this compromise while determining the quantum of sentence.
  • Appellant No. 2, Vivek, argued that there was no evidence to prove he shared a common intention with the other appellants to set fire to the house.
• Respondent-State’s Submission:
  • The State argued for upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
• Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)’s Submission:
  • Namdeo, the complainant, through his counsel, confirmed the compromise.
  • He stated that he had reconciled with his brother, Shankar (Appellant No. 1), and requested the court to consider the compromise.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellants’ reliance on the compromise to seek a reduction in sentence, despite the offense of arson being non-compoundable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was justified.
2. Whether the compromise between the parties could be a valid ground for reducing the sentence, especially for non-compoundable offenses.
3. Whether the conviction of Appellant No. 2 (Vivek) under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was justified in the absence of evidence of common intention for arson.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house, etc.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Common intention.
• Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Compounding of offenses.

Judgment

Authorities:

• Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667: The court followed this authority and held that the compromise between the parties is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration in considering the quantum of sentence.
• 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: The court followed these authorities to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellants to the period already undergone, considering the compromise.
• Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1990 Supp SCC 681: This case was referred to, where the court had ordered the compounding of an offense, but the court did not follow this authority stating that it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offense not compoundable under the Code.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Family Reconciliation: The Court emphasized the importance of family reconciliation and the fact that the complainant, Namdeo, had reconciled with his brother, Shankar.
• Compromise: The compromise between the parties was a significant factor in the Court’s decision to reduce the sentence.
• Lack of Common Intention: The Court found that there was no evidence to prove that Appellant No. 2, Vivek, shared a common intention with the other appellants to commit arson.
• Non-Compoundable Offense: While acknowledging that arson is a non-compoundable offense, the Court held that the compromise was a relevant factor to be considered in sentencing.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court observed, “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.” However, it also noted, “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.” The Court further stated, “However, taking into consideration the relationship of the parties and the factum of compromise between the parties which is a relevant circumstance, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants no.1 and 3 under Sections 436 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is modified to the period already undergone by them.”

Key Takeaways

• Compromise between parties, especially in family disputes, can be a significant factor in reducing the sentence, even for non-compoundable offenses like arson.
• The principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) requires concrete evidence linking each accused to the commission of the crime.
• Courts may consider the relationship between the parties and the factum of compromise as relevant circumstances while determining the quantum of sentence.
• While statutory provisions regarding compounding of offenses must be respected, the courts have the discretion to consider mitigating factors such as compromise while imposing sentences.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the conviction of Appellant No. 2 (Vivek) under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) be set aside, and his conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) be set aside. The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon Appellants No. 1 and 3 under Sections 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was modified to the period already undergone by them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while non-compoundable offenses cannot be compounded by the court, the factum of compromise between the parties is a relevant factor that can be taken into consideration while determining the quantum of sentence. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts have the discretion to consider mitigating factors, such as family reconciliation, while imposing sentences. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing position.

Conclusion

In the case of Shankar & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Supreme Court modified the sentence for arson, taking into account the family compromise. The court acquitted one of the accused of arson due to a lack of evidence of common intention but upheld his conviction for voluntarily causing hurt. The judgment highlights the importance of family reconciliation in the Indian legal system and the court’s discretion to consider mitigating factors while imposing sentences, even for non-compoundable offenses.