Harminder Singh @ Pappi and Another vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The appellants were tried for offence u/s 307/34 IPC on the allegations that on 2.7.1996 they caused injuries to Vijay Kumar. Vide judgment and order dated 2/3.11.1998, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa convicted the appellants for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In case of non-payment of fine, the defaulting appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. Against their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed the present appeal in which they were granted the concession of bail vide order dated 16.12.1998.

Vijay Kumar injured has sought enhancement of the sentences of the convicts and awarding him compensation by filing Crl. Revision No. 101 of 1999. The said revision is also being disposed of with the present appeal.

According to the prosecution, Vijay Kumar was held from his hands by Sukhwinder Singh, whereas Harminder Singh @ Pappi had given a knife blow on his neck. Thereafter, Vijay Kumar was being taken by the appellants from his house in village Talwandi Sabo to village Bappan on his assurance that he would make payment to them after obtaining the money from his relations. The jeep, in which the appellants and Vijay Kumar were travelling, struck with the Safaida tree and fell in a canal. This attracted a number of persons to the spot, who pulled the three occupants of the jeep from the canal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has not challenge the conviction of his clients but has stated that the parties have amicably resolved their differences at the intervention of respectables of the areas. Accordingly, a formal deed of compromise was executed, which was signed by the appellants on the one hand and Vijay Kumar injured on the other. The said compromise deed was witnessed by Prem Kumar, Lambardar of village Talwandi Sabo, Paramjit Singh, Sarpanch of Talwandi Sabo, Manjit Singh, Sarpanch of village Nangla, Jangir Singh, ex-Sarpanch of village Nangla, Jagmeal Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lehri, Najar Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jassa and one Gurtej Singh resident of village Nangla. Thereafter, it was got attested from Notary Public, Talwandi Sabo on 17.11.2008. The compromise deed has already been brought on record by filing Crl. Misc. No.59053 of 2008, which was allowed on 22.12.2008. The occurrence relates to the year 1996. Both the appellants have already undergone a substantive sentence of 1� months in jail as convicts. Besides, Harminder Singh @ Pappi appellant remained in jail as an under trial for more than five months, while in the case of Sukhwinder Singh, the said period was of eight days. As the matter between the parties stands amicably resolved, the substantive sentence of the appellants be reduced to that already undergone by them so that the friendly ties, which have developed between the parties, may be further cemented.

The appellants and the injured are present in Court. The injured has suffered a statement and accepted the factum of compromise between the parties. He also identified his signatures appearing on the compromise deed. Similarly, both the appellants have also confirmed the fact of compromise.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellants by submitting that the appellants stand convicted for the offence u/s 307/34 IPC which offence is not compoundable. However, learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the appellants be extended the benefit due to them on account of compromise arrived at between the parties.

It is a fact that the offence u/s 307 IPC is not compoundable. However, the benefit of compromise can be granted to the appellants only in respect of their sentences but they cannot be totally absolved of the charge against them. As is apparent from the custody certificates of the appellants produced by learned State counsel in the Court itself, Harminder Singh @ Pappi appellant remained in jail as an under trial for a period of 5 months and 4 days and as a convict for 1 month and 22 days. In all, he has undergone 6 months and 26 days out of the sentence of four years imposed upon him. In the case of Sukhwinder Singh-appellant, his under trial period was eight days, while he spent a period of 1 month and 22 days in jail as a convict. In all, he has undergone a period of two months. Both the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since the year 1996. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for the last more than 11 years. The parties have already seen sense in not continuing with their hostile attitude towards each other. They have amicably settled their differences by entering into a compromise. The formal deed executed in that regard stands witnessed by a number of respectable of the area, including Sarpanch and Lambardar of the village of the parties. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants behind the bars, once again, so as to serve their remaining sentences. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of the appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them.

Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants for the offence u/s 307/34 IPC is maintained. However, their substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by them. Criminal Appeal No. 986-SB of 1998 is, accordingly, disposed of.

In view of the decision in the appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentences, Criminal Revision No. 101 of 1999 filed by Vijay Kumar has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of.