Avtar Singh vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 15.9.1999 whereby the Appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:

i) Convicted u/s 307 IPC for causing injuries to Gurmail Singh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months:

ii) Convicted u/s 307 IPC for causing injuries to Jagmohan Singh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months: and

iii)Convicted u/s 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period spent by the Appellant in jail during investigation and trial of the case was ordered to be set off against the sentence imposed.

According to the prosecution, the Appellant had fired from his licenced gun at his brother Gurmail Singh and his son Jagmohan Singh. The occurrence had taken place on 27.4.1996 at about 4.00 p.m.

when the Appellant came out of his house and started abusing and threatening the complainant party for teaching them a lesson in not giving him his share of land. Regarding the occurrence, FIR was registered at the instance of Surinder Kaur, wife of Gurmail Singh.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction. However, he has submitted that at the intervention of the respectables of the village, the matter has been amicably sorted out between the Appellant on the one hand and Gurmail Singh and Jagmohan Singh injured on the other. They have started visiting each others'' house. The Appellant has already undergone a sentence of about three years and nine months out of the sentence of seven years imposed upon him. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 14 years. Under these circumstances, the remaining sentence of imprisonment of the Appellant be set aside.

Gurmail Singh, one of the injured, is present in the Court. His separate statement has been recorded wherein he has confirmed the factum of compromise. He has also stated that his son Jagmohan Singh, who had also received injuries in the same incident is presently abroad and even said Jagmohan Singh has no objection if benefit of compromise is extended to the Appellant.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties. However, he has submitted that as the Appellant had fired and injured two persons, he does not deserve any concession in the matter of sentence.

Though the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved yet the offences for which the Appellant stand convicted are not compoundable. However, the benefit of compromise can be extended to the Appellant in the matter of his sentence of imprisonment.

As per the custody certificate already placed on record, the Appellant has undergone an actual period of three years eight months and four days in jail.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the Appellant behind the bars, once again, for undergoing his remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of imprisonment of the Appellant are reduced to that already undergone by him.

Resultantly, the conviction of the Appellant for the various offences, as recorded by the trial Court, is maintained. However, his substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentences of fine alongwith their default clauses are maintained.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.