IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1477  OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9525 of 2008)

Amar Nath Shukla …Appellant  

Versus

State of Uttaranchal    …Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

Leave granted.

2. In this appeal by special leave the appellant Amar Nath  

Shukla had challenged his conviction under Section 436 of the  

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). He was  

tried by First Upper Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No. 355 of

1989  of  the  charge  of  having  committed  the  offences  

punishable under Sections 436 and 147 IPC.  The trial court by  

its judgment and order dated 29.7.1991 found the appellant  

guilty  of  the  offence punishable  under  Section  436 IPC and  

acquitted him of the charge under Section 147 IPC.  He was  

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years  

and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.   On appeal, the High Court by  

its impugned judgment and order dated 21.8.2008 in Criminal  

Appeal  No.  775  of  2001  (Old  No.  1529/91)  dismissed  the  

appeal preferred by the appellant.  

3. The occurrence giving rise to the present appeal is said to  

have occurred on 26.2.1989 at about 1.00 P.M.  The case of  

the prosecution, as deposed to by the complainant-Sita Ram  

(PW-3) is that he was living along with his wife and children in  

a hut near Nagla Shiv Temple, P.S. Lalkuan for the last three  

years preceding the date of occurrence.  It is alleged that the  

appellant along with his brother-in-law and uncle came to the  

place where the complainant was residing and started beating  

2

him  and  thereafter  set  fire  to  the  hut.  On  account  of  

commission of offence of mischief by fire the entire hut along  

with the household articles were burnt and reduced into ashes.  

The  appellant  along  with  other  persons  ran  away  from the  

spot.  It  is  the  further  case  of  the  prosecution  that  Sitaram  

reported the  details of the incident vide Exhibit KA-1 on the  

same day at about 16.00 P.M.. Based on Exhibit KA-I the Police  

Station  Lalkuan,  District  Nainital  registered  a  case  under  

Sections 436 and 323 IPC against the appellant.  

4. The  police  having  completed  the  investigation,  filed  

charge sheet against the appellant.  The prosecution in order  

to  establish  its  case  against  the  appellant  and  another  

altogether  examined  5  witnesses  (PW-1  to  PW-5).   The  

statement  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.  of  the  appellant  was  

recorded in which he stated that due to prior enmity he has  

been falsely implicated in the case.   

3

5. In  this  appeal,  Shri  M.N.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  did  not  challenge,  nor  

make  any  submission  as  regards  the  conviction  of  the  

appellant under Section 436 IPC.  His submission was confined  

only to the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the courts  

below.  

6. It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the  

appeal  in  the High Court  complainant  -  Sitaram died in  the  

year 2005. That because of initiation of criminal case against  

the  appellant  there  were  some  ill-feelings  between  the  

appellant and the widow of the complainant – Malti Devi aged  

61 years.  In order to live in peace and tranquility the appellant  

and Malti Devi entered into a compromise at the intervention of  

local elders whereunder an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was given  by  

the appellant to the widow as a solatium. That ever since the  

compromise, parties are living in peace and maintaining very  

cordial relations with each other.   

4

7. The wife of deceased Sitaram filed Crl. M.P No. 12467 of  

2009 to implead herself as party respondent in this appeal in  

which the facts stated above are depicted for consideration of  

this Court. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the  

subsequent  developments  the  sentence  imposed  upon  the  

appellant  may  be  reduced  to  that  of  the  sentence  already  

undergone.  Be  that  as  it  may,  we  cannot  compound  the  

offence on the basis of the said compromise inasmuch as the  

offence  punishable  under  Section  436  IPC  is  non-

compoundable nor we can direct the courts below to compound  

the offence based on the compromise.

8. It is evident from the record that the appellant is a young  

married  man  having  small  kids  and  he  is  the  only  earning  

member of his family. The incident is of the year 1989. He was  

in jail  for a period of  more than 7 months.  Considering the  

nature  of  allegations  leveled  against  the  appellant  and  

considering the period of sentence already undergone and the  

subsequent developments referred to herein above, we are of  

the considered opinion that interest of justice would be met by  

5

maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 436  

IPC and reducing the sentence to that of the period already  

undergone  by  him.  He  shall  be  forthwith  released  unless  

required in any other case.  

9. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.  

……………………………………J.         ( R.V. Raveendran)

……………………………………J.  (B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi;  August  11, 2009

6

7