Sulakhan Singh vs State of Punjab

Sat Pal, J.(Oral)

By this judgment I propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 64SB of 1995 and Criminal Revision No. 194 of 1995, as both the said Criminal Appeal and the Revision Petition arise out of the same judgment, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

A Criminal Misc. Application was filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to compound the offences. Since the complainant alongwith his counsel was present in the Court on the last date of hearing, the application was filed in the Court itself and was taken on record and a copy of the application was supplied to the learned AAG Punjab. The application alongwith the main case was, however, fixed for arguments for today.

In this case, four appellants, namely Sulakhan Singh, Kulwant Singh, Major Singh and Bikramjit Singh were convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, under sections 323/325/326 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide judgment, dated 13th January, 1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sulakhan Singh accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ under Section 326, Indian Penal Code; R.I. for two years under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC; R.I. for two years under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, and R.I. for six months under Section 323 read with section 34, IPC.

Accused Kulwant Singh was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 326, read with section 34 IPC, R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 325, IPC, R.I. for two years under Section 324 read with section 34 IPC, and R.I. for six months under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

Accused Major Singh was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. R.I., for two years under section 325 read with section 34 IPC, R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 325 IPC; and R.I. for six months under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

Accused Bikramjit Singh was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC; R.I. for two years under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC; R.I. for two years under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC; R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ under Section 323, IPC All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It may also be mentioned here that the complainant had also filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 194SB of 1995 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellants.

Mr. Hundal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits on instructions that the fine has already been deposited with the trial Court.

The Appeal was admitted on 1st February, 1995 and notice regarding grant of bail was issued to A.G. Punjab on 1st February, 1995. During the pendency of the appeal, an application (Criminal Misc. No. 12509/95) was filed on 10th July, 1995 under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences. On 10th July, 1995 itself the complaint (injured) Sardul Singh was present in the Court along with his counsel, Mr. B.S. Jaiswal, Advocate. The complainant submitted in the Court that he was a cousin brother of the appellants and he had already settled all his disputes with the appellants. He further stated that he wanted to live peacefully with the appellants as all the appellants are his close relatives. He had also submitted that he had got no objection if the offences against the appellants are compounded.

Mr. Hundal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants and the injured person belong to one family and have amicably settled their disputes and they want to live in peace and this has been stated so by the injured in the Court on 10th July, 1995. He further submits that the maximum punishment has been awarded under Section 326 IPC and though the offence under Section 326 IPC is noncompoundable a lenient view may be taken in the matter as the appellants had been in custody for a period of 11/2 months prior to the commencement of the trial and have been again in custody since 13th January, 1995, the date on which the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced. He also submits at the Bar that the injured has been duly compensated by the appellants by paying some substantial amount. He, therefore, contends that the sentence awarded to the appellants should be reduced to one already undergone. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case, Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2148.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. As stated hereinabove, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 323/325/326 IPC. Under Section 320, Criminal Procedure Code, Section 323 is compoundable, even without the permission of the Court and Section 325 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court. But Section 326 IPC is not compoundable though it is also triable by a Magistrate Ist Class. Technically the offence under Section 326 IPC cannot be allowed to be compounded, but keeping in view the special facts of the case, namely, that the injured and the appellants belong to the same family; all the disputes between the appellants and the injured have since been amicably settled and the injured has been duly compensated by the appellants as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the injured himself had stated in the Court that he wanted to live peacefully with the appellants who are his close relatives and further the appellants had been in custody for a period of 71/2 months, I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the one already undergone. The view I have taken finds full support from two judgments of the Supreme Court in Ram Pujan''s case (supra) and in Ishwar Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1989 (1) All India Criminal L.R. 6. Accordingly, I reduce the substantive sentences awarded to all the appellants under Sections 326/325/323, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code to one already undergone. I further direct that the appellants shall be released forthwith in case they are not required to be detained in any other case.