Kailash and ors. vs State of Haryana

H.K. Sandhu, J.

Kailash, Bhagwan and Ghanshyam revision petitioners were tried for offences under Sections 326/324 read with Section 34 IPC by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar for causing injuries to Rup Singh, Sahib Singh and Dharu Singh. They were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different periods under different counts and were also fined vide judgment dated 14.6.1985. They preferred an appeal against judgment recording their conviction, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (III), Rohtak. The petitioners filed a revision petition assailing both the judgments vide which they were convicted and sentenced.

During the pendency of the revision petition all the three injured persons moved an applicant in for permission to compound the offence and for acceptance of compromise arrived at between them and the petitioners. ''they alleged that on the intervention of the brotherhood and in order to restore peace between the parties a compromise had been effected, They may be permitted to compound the offence with the petitioners so that they may live in peace and harmony in village with the petitioners who were members of the Village fraternity.'' Dharu Singh also filed ''an affidavit in support of the allegations made in the application.

Before me the learned counsel for the ''petitioners did not address any arguments assailing the conviction of the petitioners. He simply contended that in the present case none of the injured persons received grievous injury though the petitioners were convicted for an offence under Section 326 IPC on the ground that as per opinion of the doctor Rup Singh, one of the injured remained admitted in the hospital of 22 days and during'' this period he was unable to perform his ordinary persuits. The occurrence took place in the year 1982 and the petitioners had already undergone sufficient mental and physical harassment for the last 9 years. Now the parties have come to terms, so the petitioners may not be sent to jail and the sentence awarded to them may be reduced to the period, during which they remained in custody. I find that the contention of the learned counsel is quite valid. The occurrence took place about 9 years back and the injuries suffered by the injured were simple in nature. Although there was opinion of the doctor that for a period of 20 days one of the injured was unable to perform his. ordinary persuits yet the injured himself did not state a word to that effect. The opinion of the doctor was not put to the petitioners when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Now when the parties have effected compromise on the intervention, of some respectables and they are to live in the some village, it will be expedient in the interest of justice that the sentence of the petitioners should be reduced. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners under all the courts is reduced to the period during which they remained in custody, but the sentence of fine is maintained. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.