Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 22 July, 2015
Author: Hari Pal Verma
Bench: Hari Pal Verma
CRA-S-619-SB of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-17385 of 2015 in/and
CRA-S-619-SB of 2014 (O&M).
Decided on:-July 22, 2015.
Karan Singh and others .........Appellants.
Versus
State of Haryana and another .........Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the applicants-appellants.
Mr. Manish Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
HARI PAL VERMA, J.
The appellants, namely, Karan Singh, Sachin, Anshu, Amit and Satish have filed the present appeal before this Court against the judgment of conviction dated 23.1.2014 and order of sentence dated 27.1.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in Sessions Case No.39 of 2011 titled "State Versus Karan Singh and others". The trial Court had held the appellants-accused guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections147, 295-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled YAG DUTT 2015.07.24 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-619-SB of 2014 -2- Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide impugned judgment dated 23.1.2014. Vide separate order dated 27.1.2014 on the quantum of setence, the learned trial Court sentenced the appellants-accused as under:
Offence Sentence 147 read with section Simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- 149 IPC each. In default of payment of fine they will undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
153-A read with Simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine section 149 IPC of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they will undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
295-A read with Simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- section 149 IPC each. In default of payment of fine they will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
323 read with section Simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine 149 IPC of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine they will undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
504 read with section Simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of 149 IPC Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they will undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
506 read with section Simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of 149 IPC Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they will undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
3(1)(xiv) of the Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a Scheduled Castes fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they will and the Scheduled further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 3(1)(xi) of the Rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a Scheduled Castes fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they will and the Scheduled further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 It was, however, ordered that the period of custody of the YAG DUTT 2015.07.24 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-619-SB of 2014 -3- convicts during the investigation/trial of the case shall be set-off against their substantive sentences as provided under Section 428 Cr.PC and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
The appeal filed by the appellants in this Court stands admitted and during the pendency of the appeal, the applicants-appellants have filed CRM No.17385 of 2015 for permission to compound the offence in view of the compromise deed dated 09.03.2015 entered between the parties.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book.
It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the matter has been settled between the appellants and the complainant and the parties want that the case should be finished which is otherwise pending, as the parties intend to maintain peace. The parties do not want any legal action and they have compromised the matter in the village Panchayat. The complainant has stated that he has no objection if conviction of the accused is set aside and the enmity between the complainant and the appellants- accused is resolved. The compromise dated 09.03.2015 has been annexed as Annexure A-1 which is without any pressure, undue influence and is based on free will of the parties.
Initially, a criminal complaint was filed by complainant Raj Pal Singh under Sections 147, 149, 153-A, 295-A, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR YAG DUTT 2015.07.24 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-619-SB of 2014 -4- No.55 dated 17.2.2010 was lodged under Sections 323, 356, 147, 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but the appellants-accused were arrested under Sections 147, 149, 323 IPC only. The police did not file challan against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and it was in these circumstances, the complainant had filed the present complaint.
The allegations made in the complaint are that the complainant belongs to Jatav-Chamar caste which is recognised as scheduled caste in State of Haryana and the appellants-accused are residents of the same village but belong to non-scheduled caste. On 17.2.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., the complainant was going to marry his son and was preparing to go to village Dairy Gujran, District Gautambudh Nagar (U.P.). When Ghurchadi was in process, the bridegroom Arjun Singh son of the complainant along with ladies and members of the Barat reached the place of worship at 'Ganga Ram Devta' (temple) of village Dabua for worship at 11.00 a.m. The appellants- accused along with 15-20 anti-social elements with common intention and prior meeting of mind gathered at worship place (temple) and had challenged the bridegroom and the complainant party. They stopped them from entering the place of worship and did not allow them to have Pooja in the aforesaid temple. The appellants-accused pounced on the complainant and his nephew Rajender Parsad and assaulted them with hands and legs. While accused Satish hit Rajinder Parsad on his ribs by fists, accused Karan YAG DUTT 2015.07.24 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-619-SB of 2014 -5- pushed the complainant and made him to fall on the ground, accused Anshu, Amit and Satish dragged bridegroom Arjun Singh from the Ghori (mare). Accused Anshu, Amit and Satish also pushed back Smt. Manno Devi wife of Rajinder and had thrown her Pooja Thali on the ground.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the trial was conducted and the trial Court vide impugned judgment and order had convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused in the manner as mentioned hereinabove.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that as the parties have entered into compromise i.e. Annexure A-1 dated 19.3.2015 and as there is no enmity between the appellants and the complainant, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence may be set aside during the pendency of the appeal. He further contends that except Section 3 of the Act, the other offences are compoundable as provided under Section 320 Cr.P.C. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Balwant Singh Versus State of Punjab 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 684 wherein permission to compound the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act was accepted and the order of conviction was set aside as the parties had compromised the matter.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910 had quashed all the proceedings arising out of the FIR and held that continuation of criminal proceedings in view of the compromise would be an abuse of YAG DUTT 2015.07.24 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-619-SB of 2014 -6- process of law. In that case, the Apex Court had accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and all other proceedings arising therefrom as well as set aside the order of conviction. Similarly, in the case of Sukhwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 991, while relying on the judgment of Khursheet and another Versus State of UP and another 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 495, this Court had allowed the appellants to compound the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC during the pendency of the appeal.
Thus, having regard to the aforesaid jdugments including Balwant Singh's case (supra) and in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the compromise enabling the parties to live amicably. Further more, dispute in the present case is totally personal in nature and, therefore, there is hardly any impediment in considering and accepting the compromise deed Annexure A-1 dated 09.03.2015 entered between the parties.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.1.2014 and order of sentence dated 27.1.2014 passed by the learned trial Court are set aside and the appellants stand acquitted of the charge levelled against them.
Disposed of accordingly.
(HARI PAL VERMA) JUDGE July 22, 2015 'Yag Dutt' YAG DUTT 2015.07.24 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document