Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanhaiya Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana on 18 January, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl.Appeal No.932-SB of 1997 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No.932-SB of 1997
Date of Decision: 18 - 1 - 2010
Kanhaiya Lal and others .....Appellants
v.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms.Hemlata Balhara, AAG, Haryana.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Four appellants, namely, Kanhaiya Lal, Rajesh Kumar, Rajender Kumar and Shyam Singh were convicted and sentenced by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for offence under Section 325/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 323/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. They were tried in case FIR No.185 dated 23.8.1995 registered at Police Station Uklana under Sections 323, 325/34 IPC.
During the pendency of the appeal, it is stated that appellant Crl.Appeal No.932-SB of 1997 [2] Kanhaiya Lal had expired, therefore, the present appeal qua him abate. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar is directed to hold an enquiry regarding the factum of death of appellant Kanhaiya Lal. In case it is found that the aforesaid appellant had expired, no reference be made to this Court, if it is found to be contrary, the present appeal qua him shall be revived. Registrar Judicial shall monitor and obtain report from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar within three weeks from today.
Today statements of the accused-appellants and injured Krishan Kumar, Mahabir, Ram Dhari have been recorded. Fourth injured Jaimal had expired during the pendency of the appeal. The statements of the appellants and the injured recorded today separately be read as part of the present appeal.
Counsel for the appellants has placed on record in the connected appeal panchayati compromise and affidavits of Ram Dhari, Jaimal, Krishan Kumar and Mahbir. Since the parties have stated that they have compromised, counsel appearing for the appellants Mr.Sudhir Sharma has stated that he do not challenge the conviction and pray that taking into consideration the compromise and the protracted trial as mitigating circumstance, their sentence be reduced. Reliance has been placed on Ram Pujan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1973(2) SCC 456 and Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. V. State of Orissa, 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 415.
This Court has consistently taken into consideration the compromise as a mitigating circumstance and has always held that hour of the compromise is the finest hour. In the light of the compromise, since the parties intend to promote everlasting peace and for the last 13 years they Crl.Appeal No.932-SB of 1997 [3] are maintaining cordial relations, harmony and amity, this Court by sending the appellants behind the bars will not disturb the prevailing peace. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is required to be reduced especially when appellants have vouchsafed compromise in Criminal Appeal No.872-SB of 1997. The appellants have not undergone even a single day, therefore, sentence awarded to them cannot be reduced to already undergone, which has been done in Cross Appeal No.872-SB of 1997 relying upon ratio of Ram Punjan's case (supra) and Surendra Nath Mohanty's case (supra). Thus, sentence of imprisonment is reduced till rising of the Court. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. For serving the sentence till rising of the Court, they shall appear before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. With this modification in order of sentence, the appeal is disposed of.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 18, 2010. JUDGE RC