Vir Singh vs The State of Punjab

A.S. Bains, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th February, 1979, rendered by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- or in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month''s rigorous imprisonment more. He was further convicted u/s 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment. His both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. His co-accused Joginder Singh, Gurdip Singh and Chanan Singh were also tried with him, but they were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Mr. Ghai, learned counsel for the appellant, says that Balbir Singh injured complainant has compromised with the appellant and he has paid Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to him. Balbir Singh complainant is present in Court and his statement was also recorded. He admits that he was paid Rs. 10,000/- by the appellant as compensation and that he has compounded the offence. He has been identified by Hazara Singh, Sarpanch. Although the offence u/s 207, Indian Penal Code, is not compoundable, but in view of the principle of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Pujan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, , the factum of compromise can be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of sentence.

The appellant is a teacher and he has paid the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to Balbir Singh injured (complainant). He is a first offender. In my view, ends of justice will be amply met if his sentence of imprisonment under each count is reduced to that already undergone. He has already undergone about 3 1/2 months. His sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine is maintained.

Except for the alteration in the sentence as indicated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed.