Charan Singh and another vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Charan Singh alias Billa and Harbhajan Singh. They were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as under :-

Name of accused

Offence

Sentence

Fine

Sentence in default of payment of fine

Parminder Singh

326 IPC

R.I. for two years

1,000/-

R.I. for two months

-- do --

324/325/34 IPC

R.I. for one year each

---

---

-- do --

323 IPC

R.I. for six months

---

---

Prithipal Singh

326/34 IPC

R.I. for two years

1,000/-

R.I. for two months

-- do --

324/34/325 IPC

R.I. for one year

---

---

-- do --

323 IPC

R.I. for six months

---

---

Charan Singh

326/34 IPC

R.I. for two years

1,000/-

R.I. for two months

-- do --

324/34/325 IPC

R.I. for one year each

---

---

-- do --

323 IPC

R.I. for six months

---

---

Harbhajan Singh

326/34 IPC

R.I. for two years

1,000/-

R.I. for two months

-- do --

324/325/34 IPC

R.I. for one year each

---

---

-- do --

323 IPC

R.I. for six months

---

---

In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 30.7.1996 at 8.30 A.M.. The FIR in the present case was lodged by Bahadur Singh alias Jog Singh, complainant. Petitioners had caused injuries to Darshan Singh, brother of Bahadur Singh. Darshan Singh was examined by PW.1 Dr. N.K.Singla and he had suffered ten injuries. Injuries No. 2 to 4 and 8 were declared as grievous. Injuries No. 1 to 6 were on the right and left legs. Injury No. 8 was on the left arm.

Counsel for the petitioners has not made any submission on merits of the case and has accepted the conviction. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of appeal, the parties have arrived at compromise. Counsel further submits that petitioners had preferred Criminal Misc. No. M- 17166 of 2005 in this Court and the same was listed before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the following order was passed :-

Learned counsel submitted that the accused petitioners have been convicted under Sections 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC and have been sentenced variously. Learned counsel also submitted that in terms of Annexure P/2, the parties have since compromised the matter and further except Section 326 IPC, other sections are compoundable.

Let compromise deed (Annexure P/2) and affidavit (Annexure P/3) be sent to learned Appellate Court for recording statements of the parties. Learned Judge shall send report with statements within four weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.

List the matter for further hearing after the report is received.

Thereafter, the above said Criminal Misc. No. M-17166 of 2005 was disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.5.2006 by passing the following order :-

I do not agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel. Whatever, is sought is legally not permissible and, therefore, the instant petition deserve to be dismissed, observing that the factum of compromise can very well be taken into consideration b the appellate Court on the point of quantum of sentence. Ordered accordingly.

Notice of motion was issued and records were requisitioned.

Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the record of the case and has stated that statement of Darshan Singh was recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court on 11.5.2005 in which he admitted the factum of compromise and compromise deed Ex.CX. Darshan Singh had stated that he did not intend to pursue the FIR and the case against the accused. Statement of Hamir Singh Sarpanch was also recorded which is on the record. Statements of Cahran Singh alias Billa, Parminder Singh, Harbhajan Singh alias Soni, and Bhinder Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, were also recorded.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that factum of compromise has not been taken by the Appellate Court into consideration while determining the quantum of sentence.

The Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that compromise and the statement made by the injured and the complainant were not taken into consideration by the Appellate Court as mitigating circumstance.

Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments rendered in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1, Hari Singh and Others v. The State of Haryana, 1988 (2) RCR (Crl.) 610 (P&H) and Jawala Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 (3) RCR (Crl.) 166 (P&H).

It has been consistently held by the Hon''ble Apex Court and by this Court that where the parties arrive at compromise, the compromise being finest hour between the parties should be given due credence by the Court, as compromise promote amity, harmony and cordial relations between the parties.

In the present case, Appellate Court having recorded the statement of injured/complainant and other respectables of the village should have taken the compromise as a mitigating circumstance, ought to have reduced the sentence to already undergone.

Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has stated that once the compromise has been arrived between the parties, in case conviction is maintained, he will not argue anything regarding quantum of sentence as the same is discretion of the Court.

Taking into consideration the law propounded by Hon''ble the Apex Court and this Court in various judicial pronouncements, sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to already undergone. However, the sentence of fine shall be maintained.

With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed off.