Avtar Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Criminal Misc. No. 8071 of 2011

Criminal Misc. Application is allowed.

Affidavit of complainant (Annexure A1) and compromise deed (Annexure A2) are taken on record.

Criminal Appeal No. 95-SB of 2003

The present appeal has been filed by Avtar Singh son of Chanan Singh, who along with his two co-accused Chanan Singh son of Lal Singh and Amrik Singh son of Chanan Singh was tried in the case FIR No. 60 dated 13.11.1996, registered at Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandar, under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 34 IPC.

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jalandhar, vide its judgment dated 18.11.2002, held that in the occurrence, except Avtar Singh, no other accused had participated and he had caused injuries to Darshan Singh, for which he was held guilty for the offence u/s 307 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

During pendency of the appeal, an application was filed that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and therefore, considering the same, sentence, awarded upon the Appellant, be reduced to that of already undergone. Along with the application, affidavit of complainant dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure A1) and a compromise deed (Annexure A2) are annexed. This Court, on 22.2.2011, has passed the following order on the application filed by the Appellant:

Criminal Misc. No. 8071 of 2011

Issue notice of the application to learned Counsel for the non-applicant/Respondent.

On asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/Respondent. A copy of the application has been furnished to Mr. Sra along with an affidavit of Darshan Singh (Annexure A1) and compromise (Annexure A2). However, there are no signatures of Amrik Singh on compromise (Annexure A2).

Learned Counsel for the non-applicant is directed to verify the averments made in the application and the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. An affidavit, to this effect, of the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station shall be filed in this Court on the next date of hearing.

List on 3.3.2011.

Criminal Appeal No. 95-SB of 2003

List on 3.3.2011....

In response thereto, Satwinder Singh, Station House Office, Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar, has filed an affidavit, today in the Court. The same is taken on record. In the affidavit, so filed, it has been stated as under:

That the deponent in compliance with the directions issued by this Hon''ble Court has ascertained the factum of comprise reeked at between the parties. In this regard, the deponent has recorded the statements of Avtar Singh son of Chanan Singh, Darshan Singh son of Maggar Singh and Shiv Prem son of Durga Dass which are attached herewith as Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3 and the translation version of these statements are attached herewith as Annexures R-1/T, R-2/T and R-3/T. The deponent has also verified the factum of compromise from the locality by making open and secret enquiries and the deponent is satisfied that the matter has been compromised between Darshan Singh and Avtar Singh first and second party....

The Appellant is stated to have actually undergone three months and 27 days, out of three years'' sentence awarded upon him.

This Court, in Chiranji Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 872-SB of 1997 decided on 18.1.2010, relying upon the judgments rendered in Ram Pujan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr. v. State of Orissa 1999 (2) All Ind. CLR 415 had reduced the sentence of the Appellants therein to that of already undergone.

In Dharam Paul and Ors. v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 732-SB of 1999, decided on 3.2.2010), this Court relied upon the judgment rendered in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 1 wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court, in case u/s 307 IPC, had reduced the sentence to already undergone taking the factum of compromise as a mitigating circumstance. In Ishwar Singh''s case (supra), it was observed as under:

In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 9 SCC 255 , Murugesan and Others Vs. Ganapathy Velar, and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1), this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the Appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in AIR 1988 2111 (SC) such offence was ordered to be compounded.

In view of the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, which have been noticed above and the case law relied, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the Appellant behind the bars.

Hence, the sentence awarded to the Appellant is reduced to that of already undergone.

With the observations made above, the present criminal appeal is disposed of.