Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akash Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27911
1 CRA-12152-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12152 of 2025
AKASH DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ayush Shivhare - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Manohar Meena - Panel Lawyer for State.
Shri Raunak Yadav - Advocate for objector.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12214 of 2025
JAY CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Dubey - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Manohar Meena - Panel Lawyer for State.
Shri Raunak Yadav - Advocate for objector.
JUDGMENT
Since both the appeals are arising out of the same crime number and
judgment, therefore, the same are heard analogously and are being decided
by this common judgment.
2. These criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 415(2)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the appellants being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Tenth
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27911
2 CRA-12152-2025
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.169 of 2019
whereby the appellant – Akash Dubey has been convicted under Section 307
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years
and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation and the the appellant – Jay
Choudhary has been convicted under Section 307/34 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default stipulations.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that the complainant Anmol @ Betu
Jain on 03.12.2018 was proceeding from Karmaita to the RTO Office along
with his friends Aniket Bhatt and Mohit Vishwakarma on a motorcycle of
Mohit Vishwakarma. At about 02:45 PM, when they reached near the culvert
at Karmaita turning, appellant Akash Dubey, who was standing by the
roadside, called out to them, whereupon they stopped. Appellant Akash
Dubey allegedly informed the complainant about an earlier incident and, at
the same time, his associates, namely Manas Upadhyay, Mintu Choubey and
Jai Chaudhary, arrived at the spot. It is alleged that all the accused persons
started abusing the complainant, upon his refusal to respond in similar terms,
accused Akash Dubey, Manas Upadhyay and Mintu Choubey with an
intention to cause death, assaulted Mohit Vishwakarma by inflicting injuries
on his chest, right thigh and near the knee by means of a knife. Appellant –
Jai Chaudhary allegedly assaulted him with hands and fists. When Moksh
Choubey attempted to intervene, he also sustained injuries on his hand. It is
further alleged that the accused persons caused damage to the motorcycle of
Kallu @ Karan Vishwakarma, which was parked nearby. On the basis of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27911
3 CRA-12152-2025
complaint lodged by the complainant, a case was registered at Police Station
Madhotal, District Jabalpur under Crime No.488/2018 for offences
punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 307, 427 and 34 of the IPC. During
the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. The
accused were arrested and their memorandum statements were recorded.
After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. The learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
from where it was made over to the trial Court. During the trial, charges were
framed against appellant Akash Dubey and co-accused Mintu Choubey under
Sections 294, 506 (Part II), 307, 427 of the IPC and Section 25(1-B)(b) of the
Arms Act, whereas appellant Jai Chaudhary was charged under Sections 294,
506 (Part II), 307 read with Section 34 and 427 of the IPC. The accused
persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many
as twelve witnesses namely Anmol Jain (PW-1), Mohit Vishwakarma (PW-
2), Aniket Bhatt (PW-3), Karan Vishwakarma (PW-4), Sanu Jaiswal (PW-5),
Honey Yadav (PW-6), Nikhil Kushwaha (PW-7), Hubbilal (PW-8), Vimal
Koshta (PW-9), Ravikiran Singh (PW-10), Chandika Prasad (PW-11) and
Dr. Prashant Awasthi (PW-12) and placed Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-34. In their
statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused persons
denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them, pleaded false
implication and stated that they did not wish to adduce any evidence in
defence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27911
4 CRA-12152-2025
4. The learned trial Court, after due appreciation and marshalling of the
evidence on record vide the impugned judgment has acquitted appellant
Akash Dubey of the charges under Sections 294, 506 (Part II) and 427 of the
IPC as well as Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and appellant Jai
Choudhary of the charges under Sections 294, 506 (Part II) and 427 of the
IPC. However, the learned trial Court has convicted appellant Akash Dubey
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and appellant Jai
Choudhary for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section
34 of the IPC, and has sentenced them as stated hereinabove.
5. The appellants being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment filed
these instant appeals on various grounds.
6. Before this Court, both the parties have filed applications for
compounding of the offence. Pursuance to order dated 02.02.2026 passed by
this Court, Registrar (Judicial-II) of this Court recorded the statements of
complainant Anmol Jain and injured Mohit @ Raja Vishwakarma on
03.02.2026 and verified the correctness and genuineness of the compromise.
As per the report, parties have amicably settled their dispute and have arrived
at compromise on their own free will and volition and without any threat,
inducement or pressure to settle the dispute. Injured Mohit @ Raja
Vishwakarma has been duly identified by his counsel.
7. On the basis of the verification report dated 03.02.2026 furnished by
Registrar (Judicial-II), this Court is satisfied that the parties have arrived at a
compromise on their free-will and volition. However, the present appellants
have been convicted under Sections 307 and 307/34 of the IPC which is not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27911
5 CRA-12152-2025
compoundable, therefore, the compromise between the parties is not
acceptable.
8. At the very outset, learned counsels for the appellants submit that they
do not want to challenge the conviction of the present appellants recorded by
the learned trial Court under Sections 307 and 307/34 of the IPC, but prays
for reduction of jail sentence to the period already undergone by them. It is
contended that the incident in question is of the year 2018. The appellants
were about 26 and 30 years of age at the time of the offence and have been
facing the ordeal of trial for a long period. They are the first offenders having
no criminal antecedents to their credit. It is submitted that appellant Akash
Dubey remained in custody from 25.01.2019 to 18.04.2019 (two months and
twenty-three days), whereas appellant Jai Choudhary remained in custody
from 23.01.2019 to 18.03.2019 (one month and twenty-five days) during the
course of trial. It is further submitted that after their conviction, the
appellants have been in custody from 25.11.2025 till date. Accordingly,
appellant Akash Dubey has undergone a total period of incarceration of
about seven months and ten days, whereas appellant Jai Choudhary has
undergone a total period of incarceration of about six months and eleven
days. It is further submitted that compromise has already been entered
between the parties and parties have amicably settled their dispute.
Therefore, it is prayed that appellants’ jail sentence may be reduced/modified
to the extent of period already undergone by them. Considering the factum of
compromise already been arrived at between the parties, it is submitted that
the present appellants deserve to be treated with leniency and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27911
6 CRA-12152-2025
sympathetically.
9. Nevertheless, the appellants have not challenged the merits of the case
in regard to conviction and only confined their arguments to the quantum of
sentence on the basis of compromise application, but still this Court is of the
view to examine sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, this Court has gone
through the judgment of the trial Court. The prosecution case is not only
fortified by the eye-witnesses including injured, but also well supported by
medical and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In view of
evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of trial Court regarding
conviction appears to be sound with reasoning, therefore, it does not warrant
any inference. Accordingly, the finding with regard to conviction under
aforesaid sections is hereby affirmed.
10. Now, the Court is turning to the sentence part of non-compoundable
offence under aforesaid offences and the effect of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
11. Relying on various judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
o f Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr, 2014 (6) SCC
466 permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed
the criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.21
has observed as under:-
“21. However, we have some other cases decided
by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence
under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case
(supra), FIR was lodged under sections
147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The
matter was investigated and final report was presented
to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial
court had even framed the charges. At that stage,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:279117 CRA-12152-2025
settlement was arrived at between parties. The court
accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings,
relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR SCW
5333 wherein the court had observed that inherent
powers under section 482 of the Code are of wide
plentitude with no statutory limitation and the guiding
factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or (2) to
prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing so,
commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the
court observed:
“Since the offences involved in this
case are of a personal nature and are not
offences against the society, we had
enquired with learned counsel appearing
for the parties whether there is any
possibility of a settlement. We are happy
to note that due to efforts made by
learned counsel, parties have seen reason
and have entered into a compromise.”
This Court, thus, treated such offences including
one under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature
and not offences against the society.”
12. Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at the
stage of appeal before this Court. On this aspect, the law laid down by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
[AIR 2009 SC 675] is worth to be quoted here, as under:
“15. 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 circumstances
which, the Court may keep in mind.”
13. On this point, the view of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan
alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 SC 1745 is also
worth referring in the context of this case as under:-
“10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:279118 CRA-12152-2025
State of M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal
vs.State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy
vs.State of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 71 1,
this Court allowed the parties to compound the
offence even though the offence is a non
compoundable depending on the facts and
circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court
while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence
to the period already undergone.
11. What emerges from the above is that even if
an offence is not compoundable within the scope of
Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court
may, in view of the compromise arrive at between the
parties, reduce the sentence imposed while
maintaining the conviction.”
14. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The
State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A.
No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh )
decided on 18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram Singh vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019 and in the case of S ohan Jangu
& others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRA No.550/2023 on
11.07.2023, has taken a similar view.
15. On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote the excerpt of the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) which
is as under:-
“28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the
heart of the criminal delivery system, but we do not
find any legislative or judicially laid down guidelines
to assess the trial Court in meeting 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, it would
appear that this Court takes into account a
combination of different factors while exercisingSignature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:279119 CRA-12152-2025
discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality,
deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.”
29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of
the incident or even after conviction can indeed be
one of the factor in interfering the sentence awarded to
commensurate with the nature of offence being
committed to avoid bitterness in the families of the
accused and the victim and it will always be better to
restore their relation, if possible, but the 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.”
16. As the offence under Sections 307 of IPC is non-compoundable under
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to
accept the compromise between the parties, but it is now well settled that
such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence. The
appellants and the complainant are want to live with peace and no criminal
antecedents of the appellants have been shown, therefore, to meet the ends
of justice, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellants may
be reduced to the period already undergone.
17. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, since appellants have served the substantive jail sentence no fruitful
purpose would be served in keeping the appellants in jail further, even after
the compromise between the parties. Therefore, while maintaining the
conviction under sections 307 and 307/34 of IPC, the jail sentence awarded
by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing
fine amount from Rs.2,000/- each to Rs.10,000/- each, which shall be
deposited before the learned trial Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27911
10 CRA-12152-2025
18. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant Akash Dubey under
Section 307 of the IPC and appellant Jay Chouhdary under Section 307/34 of
the IPC is hereby maintained and the jail sentence of the appellants is
reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount, if any
already deposited by the appellants be adjusted against the aforesaid amount
of fine.
19. Accordingly, the criminal appeals stand disposed of to the extent as
indicated herein above.
20. Appellants are in jail. They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in
any other case. However, it is directed that the entire fine amount be
deposited by the appellants within a period of 60 days from the date of their
release from the jail, failing which they would surrender themselves to serve
the remaining part of the jail sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court
with default stipulations.
21. Learned trial Court is directed to ensure the aforesaid compliance.
22. The order of the trial Court pertaining to disposal of the property is
hereby affirmed.
23. Let the record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be
sent to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
THK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 10-04-2026
10:25:52