Pirthi @ Prithvi Singh vs State of Haryana

A.N. Jindal, J.—Parties have tendered the deed of compromise (Annexure A-1) and the affidavits of Shalinder Kumar-injured, Raj Kumar and Ram Singh (Anenxures A2 to A-4) which are taken on record.

Vide judgment dated 22.05.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, the accused-appellant (herein referred as ''the appellant'') was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years u/s 27 of the Arms Act.

The factual matrix of the case is that on 02.06.1994 at about 1:30 a.m., Shalinder Kumar-injured made a statement before SHO Inspector Sohan Singh to the effect that he and his brothers are the owners of 26 acres of land. Due to the low voltage of electricity in their neighbourhood, several persons collected and decided to change the phase so that they may get electricity at par with the other part of their village (Alampur). Around 9:30 p.m., Babu Ram, Randhir, Dalel Singh, Jaimal, Ram Singh and Raj Kumar visited the transformer, which was situated at a distance of 1 kilometer from their house, in order to change its phase. The line of the electricity was disconnected by his brother Babu Ram. In the meantime, accused Pirthi @ Prithvi Singh armed with double barrel licenced gun reached there. He, while abusing the aforesaid persons, remonstrated that he would not allow them to change the phase. Despite repeated requests made by Babu Ram etc., he did not agree and fired two shots from his gun. Resultantly, pellets hit on his right & left leg. Four pellets each hit on the right & left leg of his brother Raj Kumar. The shot pierced through the right foot of Ram Singh. When Sunil son of Prithvi Singh accused tried to intervene, he was hit with the shot above the knee of his left leg. Ram Singh and Raj Kumar fell down on the ground. The occurrence was witnessed by Randhir Singh, Babu Ram, Dalel Singh and Jaimal. After causing the injuries, accused ran away with his double barrel gun. All the three injured were shifted to the hospital. On the aforesaid statement made by Shailender Kumar, case u/s 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered and investigated.

On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented, which was committed to the Court of Sessions.

Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charged u/s 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all.

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained that on account of the change of transformer by the Electricity Authorities on the day of occurrence, he was deputed to keep watch over the same. The complainant party wanted to change the phase and he did not allow them to do so. However, on raising objection by him, he was belaboured whereupon his son came at his rescue. Complainant caught hold of his gun. That apart, they were also having another illicit arm. The complainant party made undiscriminating firing as a result of which his son was injured. However, he denied having caused any injury to the complainant party.

On appreciation of evidence, the trial ended in conviction.

Today, when the appeal was listed for hearing, the parties presented before me the affidavits of all the three injured namely Shailender Kumar, Raj Kumar and Ram Singh (Annexures A2 to A4) and a deed of compromise (Annexure A1).

The accused without assailing the judgment of conviction, has pleaded for seeking indulgence of this Court to take into consideration the compromise and the affidavits given by the injured persons at the time of considering their case on the quantum of sentence.

Even otherwise, while examining the evidence on record, it transpires that a cross case has been registered against the complainant party for causing injuries to Sunil Kumar. It is also established on the record that the accused has not denied the date, time and place of occurrence. PW1 Dr. K.K. Chawla has proved the x-ray report of Shalinder Kumar and Raj Kumar and opined that there were foreign bodies of metallic density in the injuries of the right and left thigh of the person of Shalinder Kumar and in the similar injuries over the right thigh of Raj Kumar.

PW2 Dr. Atul Arora proved the medico legal reports of all the injured. The medical version stands corroborated by the ocular evidence of Shalinder Kumar (PW8), Ram Singh (PW13) and Raj Kumar (PW14). NO such infirmity could be found so as to adjudge their evidence as unreliable and untrustworthy. No plausible defence has been led, as such the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court, being well founded and well based, stands confirmed.

It cannot be gainsaid that offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is not compoundable offence. Section 320 Cr.P.C. specifically bars the offence u/s 307 from being compounded but the law evolved by now and the fair demonstration of justice and equity demand that in cases where offences are compounded even during the pendency of the appeal, the Court could take into consideration the same as mitigating circumstance for the purpose of reduction of sentence. It was observed in case Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan and Others Vs. Ganapathy Velar, and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. JT 1988(3) SC 366 (1), the Apex Court observed that the Court could take into account the compromise between the parties at the time of awarding the sentence and the sentence imposed upon the appellant-accused could be reduced to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable.

Though, it was observed in case Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1990 (3) RCR (Criminal) 332 : AIR 1988 SCC 2111 that such offences could be compounded. The Apex Court in case Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (1) RCR (Cri) 1, observed that the offences declared as non-compoundable in the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be ordered to be compounded. Their Lordships made the following observations:

In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.

Similarly, it was observed in case Ram Lal and Another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, as under:

It is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand was rendered, the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was the attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y.Suresh Babu drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered "per-incuriam". We hold that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the Court cannot be compounded at all. The offence u/s 326 IPC is, admittedly, non-compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned Counsel to permit the same to be compounded.

In the aforesaid verdict, the Apex Court, however, observed that in view of the compromise, the sentence could be reduced to already undergone. Similar view was taken in case Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr Vs. State of Orissa, .

In Ishwar Singh''s (supra) also, the Apex Court in its decision on 17.10.2008 was of the view that the compromise could be taken into consideration at the time of reducing the sentence. In the instant case, the minor pellet injuries had been received by the injured. Sunil Kumar, son of the accused also suffered injuries during the said occurrence. The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is shown as 75 years old. Now he must be 85 years old and is in the evening of his life. He was Sarpanch of the village therefore, obviously, the conviction recorded against him must have spoiled his carrer as he has been carrying this stigma with him. He has already undergone 6 months and 15 days of the substantive sentence. Thus, keeping in view the compromise between the parties and the aforesaid circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant is reduced to that of already undergone.

Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine.

Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, for compliance.