Sunder Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

The following sayings of Lord Budha find their echo in gospels :

"He abused me, he beat me,

overcome me, robbed me

In those who harbour such thoughts,

Their anger is not calmed.

Not by angers are angers.

In this world ever calmed

By meekness are they calmed

Again:

"Let one conquer wrath by

meekness,

let one conquer wrong by

goodness,

let one conquer mean man by

a gift,

And a liar by the

truth."

(Reproduced from Eastern Religion and Western thought by S. Radhakrishnan, page 179.)

Both Budha and Jesus bid their disciples to lay up a treasure in the heart of charity, piety and temperance. After a long dispute the petitioner seems to learnt the abovesaid and presses it into service.

Therefore the facts of the case are :

Petitioner Sunder Singh was convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar on 25.7.1985 for the offences punishable under Sections 326/324/323 Indian Penal Code. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently but the same reads :

U/S 326 I.P.C. : R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default further R.I. for three months.

U/S 324 I.P.C. : R.I. for six months.

U/S 323 I.P.C. : R.I. for three months.

The facts of the prosecution case were that on 19.1.1984, Balwant Singh was taking meals for his father to village Khunan Kalan. His father runs a Karyana shop. He was to board the bus from Abohar. When he reached near the house of Gurdial Singh Mistri, Sunder Singh petitioner, armed with a `Datar'' met him. Malkiat Singh and Sohan Singh had also reached there. Petitioner abused Balwant Singh in the name of his mother. He gave a Lalkara that he would be taught a lesson for inflicting injuries on his person. He aimed a blow on the right arm of Balwant Singh and the same had hit his right wrist. Further blows were given on the person of Balwant Singh, who fell down. While Balwant Singh fell, 3/4 more blows were given on his left leg from the sharp and blunt side. The injured raised alam `Maar Ditta, Maar Ditta''.

At this, Malkiat Singh and Sohan Lal came to his rescue. Petitioner made good his escape alongwith the weapon of offence. The injured was removed to Civil Hospital, Muktsar by Malkiat Singh and Sohan Lal. He was medically examined. The police came to the hospital and recorded the complaining statement of Balwant Singh on basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded at the Police Station. On injury was declared to the grievous. Other injuries were kept under observation and were declared simple.

After prolonged trial, learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under sections 326/324/323 Indian Penal Code. The abovementioned order of sentence followed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Sessions at Faridkot. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 17.5.1986 dismissed the appeal. The present revision had been filed asserting the orders of learned Judicial Magistrate and that of learned Additional Sessions Judge.

The sole submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner was firstly that benefit of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure should be given or in any case the petitioner should be allowed to compound the offence with the complainant. In the alternative, he asserted that sentence should be suitably reduced keeping in view that the complainant and petitioner had compromised and settled their controversy.

Taking up the first limb of argument regarding permission to compound the offence, it requires little reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure. In brief, under Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the offences can be compounded without permission of the Court, find a mention in the Table appended to subsection 1 to Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub Section 2 to Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure lists the offences, which can be compounded with the permission of the Court. So far as, the offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it cannot be compounded even with permission of the Court. When the law does not permit, the Court will not violate the same. The same has to be respected and obeyed. Consequently the question of granting permission to compound the offence does not arise.

For almost similar has to be the reason for rejecting the request for releasing the petitioner on probation of good conduct. Subsection 1 to Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure would provide the answer and reads :

"360. JUDGMENT to release on probation of good conduct or after admission : (1) When any person not under twentyone yearss of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twentyone year of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character or antecedents of the offender, and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour :

Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court and the Magistrate is of opinion that the powers conferred by this Section should be exercised, he shall record his opinion to that effect, and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case in the manner provided by subsection (2)."

It is abundantly clear that a person cannot be released on probation when offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. That being so, when the findings of trial court not being assailed, Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure has no application.

However, in this regard, the last limb of the argument must prevail. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner placed on record affidavit of the complianant in which he recited that he had no grievance against the petitioner and has no grouse, if he is acquitted of the charges. In any case, he prays for leniency. It clearly reveals that the petitioner and complainant now have settled most of their controversy and the anger of the complainant has been calmed. The petitioner seemingly has conquered wrath by meekness and good conduct.

We know that criminal jurisprudence recognizes that no one is born criminal and good many crimes are committed at the spur of the moment. The idea of punishment as law interprets it, seems to be that in asmuchas a man has offended the society, it must offend him. But still it must be done dispassionately. It must be done that will make the offender feel sorry and resolve to do it no more. It is well to remember in the administration of criminal justice the object of criminal law. The criminal law aims at the prevention of crime. One of the primary objects of punishment is protection of the people.

Facts of the case can easily be recited. The litigation continued and pertains to incident of the year 1984. More than 13 year have expired. Thereafter, there has been no such incident. There is long delay in final culmination of litigation. The proceedings had protracted trial including pendency in appeal and revision. Crime is a kind of sermon, it is a warning, a reminder of the existence of evil and the necessity of good to conquer it. The same has been done. Realisation is the best solution. Peace that has been maintained in these long years must continue. The love lost has been restored. By sending the petitioner behind the bars, one need not ignite the hatred.

Similar argument was raised before the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2418. The dispute had settled and had become stale. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, sentence must be reduced suitably. In paragraph 7, it was observed :

"As the parties who belong to one family have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not necessary to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period. The major offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt noncompundable, but the facts of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence."

Keeping in view the aforesaid, it must be held that sentence in any case must be reduced suitably. The petitioner has already undergone about 7 weeks of the sentence during the trial and pendency of appeal and revision. This would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, in the peculiar facts already noted above, the sentence deserves to be reduced to the one already undergone. It is ordered accordingly.

For these reasons, revision petition is dismissed except for the modification in the sentence referred to above.