Dalip Kumar vs State of Punjab

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 10026 of 2012

This is an application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C for disposal of the above noted appeal in terms of the compromise and affidavit (Annexures A-1 and A-2). Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the present application is allowed as prayed for and the appeal is, accordingly, being taken up for hearing today itself.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 25.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Offence

Rigorous imprisonment

Fine

In default imprisonment

307 IPC

Five years

Rs.500/-

Three months

Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset did not argue the case on merit but alternatively prayed that since the parties have entered into compromise and the occurrence had taken place as far back as in the year 2007 and the appellant has already undergone about three years out of the total sentence of five years, therefore, lenient view be taken and the accused be acquitted of the charge.

Compromise Deed (Annexure A-1) and Affidavit of the complainant (Annexure A-2) have also been placed on record vide Crl. Misc. No. 10026 of 2012 in this regard. As per the affidavit of the complainant, he has no objection, if any relief is granted to the appellant.

After going through the judgment rendered by the courts below, the learned counsel has rightly not argued the case on merits.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has instructions to state that the matter has been compromised and has also admitted the factum of compromise placed on record as Annexures A-1 and A-2.

The appellant has been convicted for an offence u/s 307 IPC. Accordingly, the same being non-compoundable, the compromise cannot be accepted to compound the same.

However, having given my thoughtful consideration to the contention, it is seen that the occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 2007. Since then, the appellant is facing agony of the protracted proceedings. The compromise had been effected between the parties and the learned counsel for the complainant has also admitted the factum of compromise. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence suffered by him is reduced to the period already undergone. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed except for the modification in the sentence to that as already undergone.