Bhajan Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The petitioners were tried for the offences under Sections 326/325/323 read with Section 34 IPC on the allegations that on 18.6.1998 at about 8.30 a.m. they caused injuries to complainant Jawala Singh and his brother Jang Singh. Vide judgment and order dated June 10, 2000, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunam convicted and sentenced the petitioners as follows:

a) Surjit Singh convicted u/s 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months whereas Bhajan Singh and Bhola Singh convicted under Sections 326/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

b) Bhola Singh convicted u/s 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month whereas Bhajan Singh and Surjit Singh convicted under Sections 325/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

c) Bhajan Singh, Surjit Singh and Bhola Singh convicted u/s 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on November 15, 2002 by maintaining their conviction and sentences. Thereafter, they approached this Court by way of the present revision in which they were granted the concession of bail vide order dated January 16, 2003.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of his clients for the various offences. However, he has submitted that when the matter was pending in appeal, both the parties had entered into a compromise. The petitioners had moved this Court under Sections 482 and 320 IPC by filing Criminal Misc. No. 44726-M of 2002 before this Court with a prayer for compounding the offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties but the same was allowed to be withdrawn at that stage on 23.10.2002 primarily on the ground that the matter relating to the conviction and sentences was pending in appeal. An application was also made before the lower appellate Court a day before passing of the impugned judgment for permitting the petitioners to compound the offences but the said application was declined on the ground that the offence u/s 326 IPC was not compoundable in nature. In view of the fact that the matter between the parties already stands amicably resolved, the substantive sentences of the petitioners be reduced to that already undergone by them.

Learned State Counsel has submitted that the offence u/s 326 IPC is not compoundable in nature and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to compound the offences. However, in view of paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, learned State Counsel has stated that he has no material to doubt the factum of compromise having been arrived at between the parties.

It is true that the offence u/s 326 IPC is non compoundable, however, the benefit of compromise can be extended to the petitioners in the matter of their sentences of imprisonment. Over and above, the petitioners have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than twelve years. At the time of occurrence, Bhajan Singh petitioner was 72/73 years of age whereas Surjit Singh and Bhola Singh were in their early twenties. It is also a fact that on 15.11.2002 when the appeal filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentences was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, that they were taken into custody and it was only on 16.1.2003 that this Court ordered for their release on bail during the pendency of the revision.

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

Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners for the various offences, as recorded by the Courts below, is upheld. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of the petitioners are reduced to that already undergone by them. The sentences of fine alongwith their default clauses, are maintained.

The revision is, accordingly, disposed of.