Skip to content


Salim and ors. Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberReview Petition (Crl.) No. 1277 of 1992 in Criminal Appeal No. ... of 1994
Judge
Reported in1995Supp(4)SCC631
AppellantSalim and ors.
RespondentState of M.P.
Excerpt:
.....at by and between the parties subsequent to the event in question. the high court did not act on the settlement as salma did not appear in court. this is clear from the penultimate paragraph of the high court judgment. we have since received the report of the police officer stating that salma is living with her husband without facing any difficulty. the bail bonds will stand cancelled. - but having been satisfied that the compromise was genuine, the earlier order dismissing the special leave petition is set aside and grant special leave on the question of sentence alone......at the end of three months. we have since received the report of the police officer stating that salma is living with her husband without facing any difficulty. in view of the above we are satisfied that the parties have made up and there is no more any strain and stress between them. they are living happily with their children. however, we find that since they have been convicted under sections 307/34 ipc, which is a non-compoundable offence, we cannot acquit the accused persons on the basis of the compromise. however, as held by this court in ram pujan v. state of u.p.1 the fact that they have compromised the matter and have patched up their differences and the fact that since then they have been living together happily, has relevance so far as the question of sentence is concerned......
Judgment:

A.M. Ahmadi and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the accused persons and we have perused the understanding arrived at by and between the parties subsequent to the event in question. The High Court did not act on the settlement as Salma did not appear in Court. This is clear from the penultimate paragraph of the High Court judgment. We, however, find that pursuant to that understanding Rs 10,000 have been deposited in a bank account in the name of the victim Salma. We also noticed that Salma stated before the Court that she has voluntarily entered into a settlement and that since then she is residing with her husband. We also passed an order on 20-8-1993 directing the Police Officer of the Police Station concerned to keep a vigil and forward a report to this Court at the end of three months. We have since received the report of the Police Officer stating that Salma is living with her husband without facing any difficulty. In view of the above we are satisfied that the parties have made up and there is no more any strain and stress between them. They are living happily with their children. However, we find that since they have been convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC, which is a non-compoundable offence, we cannot acquit the accused persons on the basis of the compromise. However, as held by this Court in Ram Pujan v. State of U.P.1 the fact that they have compromised the matter and have patched up their differences and the fact that since then they have been living together happily, has relevance so far as the question of sentence is concerned. We had released the accused on bail with a view to finding out whether the compromise was genuine and they had in fact forgotten the past bitterness. Having been satisfied about the same we entertain the review, set aside our earlier order dismissing the special leave petition dated 12-4-1993, grant special leave on the question of sentence alone and allow the appeal by directing that sentence shall be altered to that already undergone. The bail bonds will stand cancelled.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //