LEGAL ISSUE: Can a compromise between parties be a factor in reducing the sentence for a non-compoundable offense like attempt to murder?
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Manjit Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Anr.
Judgment Date: 22 July 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 22 July 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 708
Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna
Can a compromise between the victim and the accused lead to a reduction in sentence even in serious crimes like attempted murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Manjit Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. This case explores the extent to which a compromise can influence the court’s decision on sentencing, particularly when the offense is not compoundable under the law. The court considered the fact that the parties had reached a compromise and reduced the sentence of the accused. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Case Background
On June 4, 2001, at approximately 5:30 PM, Hardip Singh (PW-1) was attacked while returning to his village, Baghiari. The appellant, Manjit Singh, along with his brother Ranjit Singh, allegedly assaulted Hardip Singh with knives, inflicting blows on his left and right thighs. Following the incident, Hardip Singh filed a complaint, leading to the registration of a case under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) read with Section 34 I.P.C. The police filed a chargesheet against the accused after completing their investigation.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 4, 2001 | Hardip Singh was attacked by Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh. |
| – | A case was registered against Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. |
| – | Trial Court convicted Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each. They were also sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. |
| – | High Court acquitted Ranjit Singh, but affirmed the conviction and sentence of Manjit Singh, and enhanced the fine to Rs. 50,000. |
| May 29, 2019 | Compromise deed entered into between the parties. |
| July 15, 2019 | Affidavit filed stating that the parties have compromised the matter. |
| July 22, 2019 | Supreme Court reduces the sentence of Manjit Singh to the period already undergone. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted Manjit Singh and his brother Ranjit Singh under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000 each. They were also sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. However, Davinder Singh, another accused, was acquitted. On appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction and sentence of Manjit Singh but acquitted Ranjit Singh, finding the charges against him not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the High Court increased the fine amount for Manjit Singh to Rs. 50,000, directing that it be paid to Hardip Singh as compensation. Manjit Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), which deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It states:
“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
The case also references Section 324 of the I.P.C., which deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means:
“Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Additionally, Section 34 of the I.P.C., which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, is also relevant.
The Supreme Court also considered the aspect of compromise in non-compoundable offenses, referring to previous judgments on this matter.
Arguments
The appellant, Manjit Singh, argued for a reduction in his sentence, primarily based on the compromise reached with the complainant, Hardip Singh. The appellant contended that the parties had resolved their dispute amicably, and therefore, the sentence should be reduced.
The State, on the other hand, did not make any specific arguments against the compromise but emphasized the seriousness of the offense, i.e., attempt to murder, which is a non-compoundable offense under the law.
The complainant, Hardip Singh, supported the appellant’s plea for reduction in sentence, stating that he had indeed compromised the matter with the appellant.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission (Manjit Singh) |
|
| State’s Submission |
|
| Complainant’s Submission (Hardip Singh) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the compromise between the parties could be a valid consideration for reducing the sentence in a non-compoundable offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the compromise between the parties could be a valid consideration for reducing the sentence in a non-compoundable offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). | The Court held that while a compromise cannot lead to the compounding of a non-compoundable offense, it is a relevant factor in determining the quantum of sentence. The Court reduced the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
✓ Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667 – The Supreme Court held that in a non-compoundable offense, the compromise between the parties is a relevant circumstance to consider when determining the quantum of sentence.
✓ Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255 – The Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, though the offences were not compoundable.
✓ Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 – The Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, though the offences were not compoundable.
✓ Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671 – The Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, though the offences were not compoundable.
✓ Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp. SCC 681 – The Supreme Court ordered the compounding of a non-compoundable offense. (This was cited in the judgment but not followed)
| Authority | How the Court Considered it |
|---|---|
| Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667 – Supreme Court of India | Followed – Held that compromise is a relevant factor in sentencing. |
| Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255 – Supreme Court of India | Followed – Cited as precedent where sentence was reduced due to compromise. |
| Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 – Supreme Court of India | Followed – Cited as precedent where sentence was reduced due to compromise. |
| Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671 – Supreme Court of India | Followed – Cited as precedent where sentence was reduced due to compromise. |
| Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp. SCC 681 – Supreme Court of India | Distinguished – Not followed as it ordered compounding of a non-compoundable offense, which is not permissible. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission for reduction in sentence based on compromise | Accepted – The Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the compromise. |
| State’s submission that the offense is non-compoundable | Acknowledged – The Court agreed that the offense cannot be compounded but considered the compromise for sentencing. |
| Complainant’s submission supporting the compromise | Accepted – The Court took into account the complainant’s support for the compromise. |
✓ Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667* – The court relied on this case to state that while a non-compoundable offense cannot be compounded, the fact of compromise is a relevant factor in determining the sentence.
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that Section 307 of the I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offense, emphasized that the compromise between the parties is a relevant factor in determining the quantum of sentence. The Court observed that the appellant had already served seventeen months of imprisonment. Considering the compromise, the relationship between the parties, and the facts of the case, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant under Sections 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. to the period already undergone. The Court also set aside the fine amount of Rs. 50,000.
The court stated, “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 circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.”
The court further noted, “Taking note of the compromise entered into between the parties and considering the relationship of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and also the sentence undergone by the appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. is reduced from five years/two years to the period already undergone by him.”
The Court also stated, “In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the appellant is set aside. If the said fine amount has already been paid, the same shall be refunded to the appellant-Manjit Singh.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the parties had reached a compromise. The court acknowledged that while attempt to murder is a serious offense and is non-compoundable, the fact that the victim and the accused had resolved their issues was a significant factor. The court also considered the appellant’s period of imprisonment already served and the relationship between the parties. This indicates that the court aimed to balance the severity of the crime with the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Compromise between parties | 50% |
| Period of imprisonment already served | 30% |
| Relationship between the parties | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual considerations (the compromise, the period of imprisonment, and the relationship between the parties) and legal considerations (the non-compoundable nature of the offense and previous judgments on the matter).
Key Takeaways
- Compromise in non-compoundable offenses: While a compromise cannot lead to the compounding of a non-compoundable offense, it can be a significant factor in reducing the sentence.
- Balancing justice and reconciliation: The Supreme Court aimed to balance the severity of the crime with the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation.
- Sentencing discretion: The judgment highlights the court’s discretion in sentencing, where factors like compromise and the relationship between the parties can play a crucial role.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless his presence was required in any other case. The fine amount of Rs. 50,000 was also set aside, and if paid, was to be refunded to the appellant.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that while a compromise cannot lead to the compounding of a non-compoundable offense, it is a relevant factor in determining the quantum of sentence. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts can consider mitigating circumstances, such as a compromise, when deciding on the appropriate sentence, even in serious criminal cases. This case does not change the previous position of law, but rather reinforces the existing principle by applying it to the facts of the case.
Conclusion
In Manjit Singh vs. The State of Punjab & Anr., the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the appellant, Manjit Singh, in an attempt to murder case, taking into consideration the compromise between the parties. While the court acknowledged that the offense was non-compoundable, it held that the compromise was a relevant factor in determining the quantum of sentence. This judgment underscores the court’s approach to balancing the severity of the crime with the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation, and highlights the importance of considering mitigating factors in sentencing.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:
- Attempt to Murder
- Sentencing
- Compromise in Criminal Cases
- Section 307, Indian Penal Code
- Section 324, Indian Penal Code
FAQ
Q: Can a case of attempt to murder be compromised?
A: No, attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is a non-compoundable offense, meaning it cannot be formally settled through a compromise in court.
Q: If a compromise is reached, does it mean the accused will be acquitted?
A: No, a compromise does not automatically lead to acquittal in a non-compoundable offense. However, it can be a significant factor in reducing the sentence.
Q: What did the Supreme Court consider in reducing the sentence?
A: The Supreme Court considered the compromise between the parties, the period of imprisonment already served by the accused, and the relationship between the parties.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights that courts can consider mitigating circumstances, such as a compromise, when deciding on the appropriate sentence, even in serious criminal cases. It reinforces the idea of balancing justice with reconciliation and rehabilitation.
Q: What does non-compoundable mean?
A: Non-compoundable means that the offense cannot be settled or withdrawn by the parties involved. It requires a formal judicial process to be completed.
Source: Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab