Reduction of Sentence on Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction but Limits Sentence to Period Already Undergone

Case Name: Venkatesh & Another v. State represented by the Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 INSC 1383

Date of Judgment/Order: 02 December 2025

Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for offences under Section 326 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the compromise between the parties and the duration of incarceration.

Summary: The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court for causing grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC and for damaging property under the TNPPDL Act, and were sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The High Court dismissed their appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants confined their challenge to the quantum of sentence. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the appellants had already undergone more than two years of incarceration and that a compromise had been arrived at between the private parties. The State opposed interference but left the matter to the discretion of the Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the appeal had been entertained only on the issue of sentence. While reaffirming that the offences were non-compoundable and the conviction could not be set aside on the basis of compromise, the Court held that the period of incarceration already undergone, coupled with settlement between the parties, justified reduction of sentence.

Decision: The appeal was allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants was upheld. However, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the appellants were directed to be released forthwith, subject to their not being required in any other case.