Dalip Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The appellants, alongwith four others were tried for an offence u/s 364 read with Section 149 IPC on the allegations that on 9.9.1993 at about 9/9.15 PM when Vijender Singh was returning to his village Shyam Kalan, a jeep stopped near him in which 7/8 persons were sitting. All of them put Vijender Singh in their jeep and gave him fist and kick blows and thereafter, took him towards village Badhra. The jeep was stopped near village Jhoju, where they alighted from it and started urinating, besides having some conversation amongst themselves. Vijender Singh came out from the jeep and escaped from the spot.

Vide judgment dated 15.12.1998, Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani, acquitted the four co-accused of the appellants. Only the appellants were convicted u/s 364 read with Section 34 IPC and vide order dated 16.12.1998 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

Aggrieved of their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed the present appeal in which they were granted concession of bail vide order dated 3.2.1999.

During pendency of the appeal, the parties have been able to resolve their differences. Vijender Singh, who had been kidnapped by the appellants and their co-accused, has made a separate statement wherein he has deposed about having entered into a compromise with the appellants at the intervention of the brotherhood and the panchayat. He has also stated about executing an affidavit dated 15.3.2010 in that regard, which affidavit has been placed on record by the appellants through Crl. Misc. No. 39306 of 2010, which has been allowed vide an order of even date.

Though the offence u/s 364 IPC is not compoundable, yet the benefit of compromise can be extended to the appellants in the matter of their sentences of imprisonment. From the record, it is apparent that each of the appellants has undergone a period of about two months in jail.

In view of the above, the conviction of the appellants for the offence u/s 364 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause is maintained.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.