IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2010 arising out of SLP(Crl.) 8365 of 2009

DEVIDAS SURYAVANSHI & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellants  four  in  number  were  convicted  

under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian  

Penal Code and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the  

IPC  and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment  

for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to  

suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and simple  

imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/- each  

in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month  

respectively.

3. The incident arose out of a dispute during the  

panchayat elections held in the year 1992 wherein the  

complainants were the successful party and the accused

appellants'  party  was  defeated.  It  is  this  rivalry  

which led to the incident on 7th November, 1993.   

4. During the course of the incident, three persons  

P.W. 1 -  Haribhau, P.W. 3 Namdev and P.W. 9 Vittal  

were injured.  While the matter has been pending in  

this Court, the parties appear to have compromised the  

dispute and a joint affidavit setting out the terms of  

the compromise has been filed.   

5. It is the contention of Mr. A.K. Shrivastava,  

the learned senior counsel for the appellants that in  

the light of the judgments of the Court in  Surendra  

Nath Mohanty & Anr. v. State of Orissa (1999) 5 SCC 238  

and Bankat and Another v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1  

SCC 343, the sentence awarded to the appellants should  

be reduced to that already undergone although the fine  

may be suitably enhanced in the background of the fact  

that admittedly the offence under Section 326 of the  

IPC was non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code  

of Criminal Procedure.   

6. We have gone through the judgments aforesaid and  

also heard the learned counsel for the complainant who  

is  present  before  us.   The  judgments  do  suggest  a  

decision in terms suggested by Mr. Shrivatava.  The

complainant's  counsel  has  also  stated  that  as  the  

parties have compromised, he would have no objection if  

the appeal is disposed of in the suggested terms.

7. We, accordingly, direct that the sentence of the  

appellants shall be reduced to that already undergone  

as we are told that they have undergone between 1½ to  

three months.  We also direct that the appellants will  

pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each as fine and that the  

aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,000/- will be paid to P.Ws.  

1,  3  and  9in  equal  shares.   The  fine  be  deposited  

within a period of three months from today. In case of  

failure  to  deposit  the  fine  within  the  stipulated  

period, the appeal will be deemed to be dismissed.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [C.K. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI MARCH 10, 2010.