Bahadur vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sudhalkar, J. (Oral)

The petitioners were convicted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahendergarh for the offence under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner No. 1 Bahadur for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. However, so far as petitioner No. 2 Jaipal is concerned, his conviction was altered to that for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and his sentence was reduced from one year to three months. The sentence of fine against both the petitioners was maintained.

When this revision has come up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant state that the parties have compromised.

The case of the prosecution is that petitioner Bahadur bit complainant Rameshwar on his left ear and because of the same, a part of his ear was chopped off. Petitioner Jaipal had caught hold of the injured at that time.

The parties viz. petitioner No. 2 and his counsel and the complainant and his counsel, have produced written compromise and its translated version. The compromise is read over to the complainant and he admits the same. Petitioner No. 2 also admits the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners also admits the same. It is exhibited as Ex. `C''. The question now arises whether the compromise can be accepted or not. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgment in the case of Rajender Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 636. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said case as under :

"It appears that the complainant and injured are neighbourers and for the better future they have compounded the offences. I have separately interviewed the injured Suresh in the presence of his counsel. After ascertaining the wish of Suresh it appears to be voluntary. He states that in the larger interest of the parties he has compounded the offences. No doubt the offence under section 307 IPC is noncompoundable, but instances are known to us that even the Hon''ble Supreme Court has given permission to the parties for the compounding of the offences even in noncompoundable offences under its inherent powers. So it appears to me that if the appellant Shri Rajinder Kumar is deprived of the liberty to enter into neighbourly terms with Sh. Suresh, the relations between the two neighbours will become more sour, which can further lead to confrontation and repeated instances like the one in hand. This Court also enjoys inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and orders can be passed which promote justice. As the complainant injured Sh. Suresh s/o Tulsi is no longer interested with the conviction and sentence of neighbour Sh. Rajinder Kumar, this court grants permission to the parties to compound the offences even if the offence is noncompoundable. Resultantly the appeal is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant stands acquitted of the charges framed against him. Intimation of this order be sent to all concerned. The present appeal stands disposed of with a hope that in future the parties will maintain coordiality as is expected between the neighbours."

Learned counsel has also cited the case of Sunder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 633 wherein it has been held by the learned Single Judge of this Court as under :

"11. However, in this regard, the last limb of the argument must prevail. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner placed on record affidavit of the complainant in which he recited that he had no grievance against the petitioner and has no grouse, if he is acquitted of the charges. In any case, he prays for leniency. It clearly reveals that the petitioner and complainant now have settled most of their controversy and the anger of the complainant has been calmed. The petitioner seemingly has conquered wrath by meekness and good conduct.

We know that criminal jurisprudence recognizes that no one is born criminal and good many crimes are committed at the spur of the moment. The idea of punishment as law interprets it, seems to be that inasmuch as a man has offended the society, it must offend him. But still it must be done dispassionately. It must be done that will make the offender feel sorry and resolve to do it no more. It is well to remember in the administration of criminal justice the object of criminal law. The criminal law aims at the prevention of crime. One of the primary objects of punishment is protection of the people.

Facts of the case can easily be recited. The litigation continued and pertains to incident of the year 1984. More than 13 years have expired. Thereafter, there has been no such incident. There is long delay in final culmination of litigation. The proceedings had protracted trial including pendency in appeal and revision. Crime is a kind of sermon, it is a warning, a reminder of the existence of evil and the necessity of good to conquer it. The same has been done. Realisation is the best solution. Peace that has been maintained in these long years must continue. The love lost has been restored. By sending the petitioner behind the bars, one need not ignite the hatred.

Similar argument was raised before the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2418. The dispute had settled and had become stale. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, sentence must be reduced suitably. In paragraph 7, it was observed :

"As the parties who belong to one family have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not necessary to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period. The major offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt noncompoundable, but the facts of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence."

In the case of Sunder Singh, 1998(1) RCR (Crl.) 633 (supra), this court has, therefore, acted on the compromise only to the extent of reducing the sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me the judgment of High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gopal Bhai Chhaganlal Soni v. The State of Gujarat and another, 1972(XIII) Gujarat Law Reporter 848. It has been held in that case that :

"a hurt caused voluntarily by means of teeth bite cannot be said to have been caused by any instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death."

It is also held in it that the rest of the means mentioned in section 324 of the Indian Penal Code also cannot apply to human teeth used for the purpose of causing voluntary hurt.

In view of the fact that the parties have compromised, I need not go into the question whether the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not or whether biting of the ear and resultant chopping off some part of it is an offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code or a lessor offence. Keeping in view the judgment in case of Sunder Singh (supra) I find it proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioners especially in view of the fact that the petitioners have compromised the matter coupled with the fact that the incident is of the year 1983. The counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have undergone a total imprisonment of two weeks. From the record it is found that the petitioners were arrested on 10.6.1983 and admitted to bail on 11.6.1983. After the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners were arrested on 4.1.1988 and ordered to be released on bail in this criminal revision vide order dated 11.1.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were released on bail some days thereafter.

Looking to this position and looking to the compromise and also considering the fact that the compromise cannot be termed as nongenuine as the complainant is represented by a counsel and he also admits the compromise, I find that sentence against the petitioners can be reduced to the one already undergone by them. In these circumstances I do not go to discuss the question as to whether the case can be compromised when the conviction is section 326 IPC.

As a result, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioners is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by them. The sentence of fine is not disturbed. Bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.

Revision partly allowed.