Compromise between accused, complainant cannot be sole mitigating factor to interfere with sentence: Supreme Court

A compromise entered into between the accused and complainant victim in a criminal case is one of the mitigating factors in interfering with the sentence of the accused but it cannot be the solitary basis for reduction in sentence, the Supreme Court ruled (Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra)..Other aggravating and mitigating factors should also support the accused in order to mold the sentence in favour of the accused, a Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka ruled."Compromise cannot be taken to be a solitary basis until the other aggravating and mitigating factors also support and are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence which always has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand," the judgment said..The decision was rendered on an appeal filed against a judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326 (causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000..The prosecution case was that on December 13, 1993, when Subhash Yadavrao Patil (injured victim) was returning to Malegaon from Tembhurni on bicycle, the appellant along with 11 others attacked him with a sickle and chopped off his right leg below the knee and right forearm below the elbow.The trial court found all the 12 accused persons guilty and convicted them for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC for causing grievous hurt and each of them was sentenced to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine in sum of Rs. 1000 each. On appeal, the Bombay High Court upheld conviction only against 5 of the 12 accused. This included the appellant.The appellant moved the top court against the same. Senior Counsel Mahesh Jethlamani appearing for the appellant, did not argue on the merits of the matter. Instead, he confined his submissions to compounding the sentence citing a compromise that had been entered between the appellant and the injured victim.In support of the same, a compromise affidavit of the victim dated July 13, 2021 was placed on record to justify that the victim had no desire to make the appellant undergo the remaining sentence.He submitted that in view of the peace and harmony between the two families, it has been requested by the complainant victim to compound the offence. Hence, the appellant be released on the sentence undergone, it was argued.State counsel Sachin Patil opposed the same stating that such compromise after 28 years of the incident, was obtained by coercion or inducement and accepting the same would not only to harm the criminal justice system but also undermine the public confidence of the efficacy of law and society..The apex court after examining the compromise affidavit and taking into account submission of parties, observed that the injured victim had been crippled for life due to the act of the appellant. It also noted that there are no legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial court in giving out the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges."Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court (Supreme Court), it would appear that this Court takes into account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc," the Court opined.Compromise if entered at the later stage of the incident or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor in interfering 14 the sentence awarded, the Court conceded.But at the same time, it cannot be the sole factor, the Court underscored.The present was one such case in which the Court cannot grant leniency based on the compromise, the Bench said."This Court cannot be oblivious of this fact that the injured victim has been crippled for life and pursuing his daily chores with the prosthetic arm and leg and has lost vital organs of the body and became permanently disabled. This has been stated by PW 8 that in the absence of immediate medical attention, death was certain and that was the reason his dying declaration was also recorded during that point of time, in our considered view, such a brutality cannot be ignored which is not against the individual but the crime is against the society which has to be dealt with sternly," the Court said rejecting the appeal..[Read Judgment]