Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh And Others vs The State Of Punjab on 6 October, 2009
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
Decided on 06.10.2009
Lakhwinder Singh and others --Appellants
Vs.
The State of Punjab -- Respondent
AND CRA-S 745-SB of 1996 Decided on 06.10.2009 Balbir Singh and others --Appellants Vs. The State of Punjab -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate,for the appellants in CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 and for the complainant in CRA-S 745-SB of1996. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat,AAG,Punjab for the State/respondent. Mr.H.S.Sangha,Advocate,for the appellants in CRA-S 745-SB of 1996 and for the complainant in CRA-S 761-SB of 1996. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:
This judgment shall dispose of two appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No.761-SB of 1996 (Lakhwinder Singh and others vs. State of CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 2 Punjab) and Criminal Appeal No.745-SB of 1996 (Balbir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab) as both of them have arisen out of version and cross version recorded in FIR No.73 dated 21.8.1986 registered under Sections 148, 307, 326, 324,323 and 149 IPC at Police Station, Ram Dass.
Brief facts in Criminal Appeal No.761-SB of 1996 are that on 20.8.1986, at about 10/11 PM Lakhwinder Singh, Kulwant Singh, Balwant Singh, Pritam Singh, Manjit Singh, Tara Singh, Jagir Singh, Satpal Singh alias Sukhpal Singh, Wassan Singh, Mohinder Singh, Jasbir Singh (now proclaimed offender), Harbans Singh, Joginder Singh son of Banta Singh, Amrik Singh, Kashmir Singh, Joginder Singh son of Tara singh, Jiwan Singh, Tarsem Singh (since deceased), Sucha Singh (Since deceased) and Buta Singh were ploughing the Bajra (millets) Crop belonging to Bhan Singh with tractor. Harbans Kaur, wife of Bhan Singh told Ram Singh and others that the aforementioned accused persons are ploughing their (Bhan Singh and others) land. Ram Singh accompanied by Jagir Singh, Avtar Singh, Jasbir Singh son of Bhan Singh, Dilbag Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Avtar Singh went to their fields, where they found Lakhwinder Singh accused driving the tractor duly fitted with cultivator. The lights of the tractor were on and it was a moon-lit-night. Avtar Singh and others stopped the accused from ploughing their fields. Lakhwinder Singh, having stopped the tractor, raised lalkara exhorting his co-accused that Avtar Singh should not be allowed to go alive. Wassan Singh, Pritam Singh and Sukhpal Singh alias Satpal Singh accused were riding on the mud-guard of the tractor while the rest of the accused were hiding themselves on the sides of the fields. Lakhwinder Singh accused was duly armed with a gandasi, Pritam Singh and Wassan Singh both were armed with kirpans and Satpal Singh was holding dang, Satpal Singh CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 3 accused dealt a dang blow hitting on the right shoulder and back of Avtar Singh PW. Wassan Singh accused gave Kirpan blow on the wrist of right arm of Avtar Singh PW, Satpal Singh repeated dang blow hitting on the left thumb of Avtar Singh PW. Pritam Singh delivered kirpan blow on the right shank of Avtar Singh PW. Lakhwinder Singh accused gave gandasi blow hitting bicep of upper arm of Avtar Singh PW. Lakhwinder Singh accused repeated his gandasi blow hitting on the head of Avtar Singh PWs. Besides this, Lakhwinder Singh gave gandasi blow from its reverse side on the right upper arm of Avtar Singh PW. Jiwan Singh accused dealt a dang blow fitted with sua (taperingly pointed) blow on the right fore-arm of Ram Singh PW.
Jagir Singh and Wazir Singh accused delivered dang blows hitting on the left forearm of Ram Singh PW. Harbans Singh gave Takwa blow hitting on the head of Ram Singh PW. Jiwan Singh gave dang (fitted with sua) blow hitting on the left shoulder of Ram Singh PW who became unconscious. Balwant Singh, Kulwant Singh, Jiwan Singh, Joginder Singh son of Banta Singh, Joginder Singh son of Tara Singh, Jagir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Harbans Singh, Bua Singh, Sucha Singh, Tarsem Singh, Jasbir Singh, Kashmir Singh, Amrik Singh, Tara Singh and Manjit Singh had emerged out of sarkandas. Tara Singh accused delivered dang blow fitted with sua on the right cheek of Jasbir Singh son of Bhan Singh, Manjit Singh gave dang blow hitting on the left fore-arm of Jasbir Singh, Jiwan Singh accused dealt dang blow fitted with sua on the left thigh of Jasbir Singh PW. Bua Singh accused gave Kulhari (axe) blow on the left knee of Jasbir Singh PW and further repeated the blow on the back of Jasbir Singh. Balwant Singh accused gave kirpan blow hitting on the left fore-arm of Jasbir Singh PW who fell down on the ground. Mohinder Singh accused gave gandasi blow hitting on the head CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 4 of Jagir Singh PW. Jasbir Singh accused delivered gandasi blow on the head of Jagir Singh PW. Sucha Singh dealt sota blows on the right arm and right leg of Jagir Singh PW. This occurrence was witnessed by Dilbag Singh and Gurbachan Singh. When Avtar Singh, Ram Singh, Jasbir Singh PW and Jagir Singh PWs raised alarm of being killed, killed, the accused persons took to their heels with their respective weapons.
Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence came to the following conclusion:-
(i)Injury No.1 on the person of Ram Singh has been attributed to Harbans Singh accused with Takwa and the same is corroborated by the evidence tendered by the former. This injury falls u/s 323 IPC. He being individually liable for his act is held guilty under Section 323 IPC and is convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences with which, he has been charged.
(ii)Injury No.2 on Ram Singh PW's person having been attributed to Jiwan Singh accused with dang is substantiated by the former in his testimony.
Jiwan Singh accused is thus held guilty under Section 323 IPC and convicted thereunder. Further, injury No.5 on Jasbir Singh's person with dang has been attributed to Jiwan Singh accused. This is proved by the solemn affirmation of Jasbir Singh PW. This injury falls under Section 323 IPC. Consequently, Jiwan Singh is held guilty u/s 323 IPC and convicted thereunder. However, he is acquitted of the remaining offences with which he has been charged.
(iii) Injury No.3 on Ram Singh PW's person having been attributed to Jagir Singh accused with dang is substantiated by the former in his evidence and the same falls u/s 323 IPC.
Consequently, Jagir Singh accused is held guilty under Section 323 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
(iv) Injury No.4 on Ram Singh PW's person having been attributed to Joginder Singh son of Tara Singh accused with dang is corroborated by CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 5 Ram Singh and the same falls u/s 323 IPC. So, Joginder Singh accused is held guilty u/s 323 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences with which, he has been charged.
(v) Injury No.6 on Ram Singh's person having been attributed to Kulwant Singh accused stands corroborated by Ram Singh's testimony. Dr. Rakesh Tiwari PW-4 has testified that this injury was dangerous to life. There is nothing on the record to depart from his opinion, which has also not been disputed by Mr.Randhawa in the course of arguments. Thus, on the strength of the ocular as well as medical evidence, it is held that the offence u/s 307 is established against Kulwant Singh accused and resultantly, he is held guilty and convicted under Section 307 IPC and is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
(vi) Injury No.1 on Jagir Singh's person having been attributed to Mohinder Singh accused with gandasi is substantiated by the former. As its consequence, Mohinder Singh accused is held guilty u/s 324 IPC and convicted thereunder. However, he is acquitted of the remaining offences with which, he has been charged.
(vii) Injury No.2 on the person of Jagir Singh PW having been attributed to Jasbir Singh accused (proclaimed offender) is corroborated by the evidence of Jagir Singh. The same falls under Section 323 IPC. Jasbir Singh being a proclaimed offender, the case will be revived against him, as and when, he appears or produced in the Court.
(viii) Injury No.1 on PW, Jasbir Singh's person having been attributed to Tara Singh accused with dang fitted with sua is corroborated by the evidence tendered by the former. The same falls u/s 323 IPC. Consequently, Tara Singh accused is held guilty u/s 323 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
(ix) Injury No.2 on the person of Jasbir Singh PW, has been attributed to Manjit Singh with dang and the same is corroborated by the evidence tendered by the former. It falls u/s 323 IPC. As such, he is held guilty under Section 323 CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 6 IPC and convicted thereunder. However, he is acquitted of the remaining offences with which, he has been charged.
(x) Injuries No.4 and 6 on Jasbir Singh's person having been attributed to Bua Singh accused with Kulhari (axe) are substantiated by the evidence tendered by the former. These injuries fall under Section 323 IPC. Consequently, Bua Singh accused is held guilty under Section 323 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences with which he has been charged.
(xi) Injuries No.1 and 5 on Avtar Singh's person having been attributed to Lakhwinder Singh accused with gandasi are established by the former's evidence. As such, Lakhwinder Singh accused is held guilty u/s 323 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
(xii) Injury No.3 on Avtar Singh's person having been attributed to Wassan Singh accused with kirpan is corroborated by the evidence tendered by the former. The same falls u/s 324 IPC. As its consequence, Wassan Singh accused is held guilty u/s 324 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
(xiii) Injuries No.2 and 4 on the person of Avtar Singh PW have been attributed to Satpal Singh alias Sukhpal Singh accused with dang and the same are substantiated by him (Avtar Singh). Both the injuries fall u/s 323 IPC. So Satpal Singh accused is held guilty under Section 323 IPC and convicted thereunder whereas he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
(xiv) Injury No.6 on the person of Avtar Singh PW having been attributed to Pritam Singh accused caused with kirpan is corroborated by the evidence tendered by Avtar Singh and the same falls under Section 326 IPC. As such Pritam Singh accused is held guilty under Section 326 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 7
(xv) No individual injury has been attributed to the accused namely Balwant Singh, Kashmir Singh, Amrik Singh and Joginder Singh son of Banta Singh. Consequently, they are acquitted of the offence, with which, they have been charged.
After holding the above accused/appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them vide order dated 29.10.1996 as under:-
Harbans Singh convict is sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months u/s 323 IPC.
Jiwan Singh convict is sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months under section 323 IPC. He is also sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Jagir Singh convict is sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Joginder Singh son of Tara Singh convict is sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Kulwant Singh convict is sentenced under Section 307 IPC to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for 8 months.
Mohinder Singh convict is sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for one year.
Tara Singh convict is sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Manjit Singh convict is sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Bua Singh convict is sentenced under Section 323 CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 8 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Lakhwinder Singh convict is sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months. He is further sentenced u/s 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Satpal Singh convict is sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Wassan Singh convict is sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for one year.
Pritam Singh convict is sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I for four months.
Lastly, it is ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, undergone by any of the convicts during the investigation, enquiry or trial of this case and before the date of this conviction shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on this conviction.
Vide order of the same date, the trial Court released the appellants on interim bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount each till 28.11.1996 subject to deposit of fine. It was also recorded that the fine has been paid.
On 27.11.1996, this appeal was admitted and sentence with regard to all the convicts/appellants was suspended subject to the condition that they will furnish the bail bonds in the amount of Rs.30,000/-each with CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 9 one surety and personal recognizance bond each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. However, request for suspension of sentence qua Kulwant Singh was declined for the present.
Later on, vide order dated 12.8.1997, sentence of Kulwant Singh was also ordered to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
When the aforesaid appeal was listed for regular hearing, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the appellants, therefore, notice was issued to the learned counsel for the appellants on 29.4.2009 for 19.5.2009. Despite notice, learned counsel for the appellants did not appear, therefore, this Court appointed Mr. Vineet Kumar Sharma,Advocate, as Amicus- Curiae.
Today, Mrs.G.K.Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has filed an application in the Court alongwith accompanying copy of compromise dated 11.7.2009 and also copy of affidavits of Gurbachan Singh son of Jagir Singh and Avtar Singh son of Ram Singh, who were injured in the occurrence dated 20.8.1986. On her application, following order was passed:-
An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed in Court today for placing on record compromise effected between the parties.
Registry is directed to put Number on the application.
Notice in the application is given to the respondents including the complainant.
At this stage, Mr.H.S.Sangha,Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant accepts notice and states that CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 10 compromise as stated by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has been effected between the parties. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, four persons, namely Ram Singh, Jagir Singh, Avtar Singh and Gurbachan Singh, were injured in the occurrence which took place on 21.8.1986. Ram Singh and Jagir Singh expired later on.
However, Gurbachan Singh and Avtar Singh have appeared today in Court alongwith their counsel who had identified them in the Court. They have stated that compromise has been effected between them.
In view of the above, present application is allowed. Original compromise as well as the affidavits signed by Gurbachan Singh and Avtar Singh are taken on record. After that, arguments were heard and order reserved. In Criminal Appeal No.745-SB of 1996, (Balbir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, the case set up by the complainant is as under:-
On 20.8.1986, at about 5 PM Lakhwinder Singh PW alongwith his uncle's son Satpal Singh PW went to plough the shamlat land. He was driving the tractor whilist Satpal Singh was sitting on its mudguard and the lights of the tractor were on. It was moon-lit. Lakhwinder Singh and Satpal Singh noticed the accused-persons namely, Gurcharan Singh, Jagir Singh, Balbir Singh, Dilbag Singh, Buta Singh, Jasbir Singh, Pritam Singh, Mehar Singh, Ram Singh and Avtar Singh coming from the side of the village. Jagir Singh accused was armed with Gandasi, Balbir Singh was armed with kirpan, Jasbir Singh was armed with gandasi, Gurbachan Singh CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 11 was armed with dang, Avtar Singh was armed with kirpan, Ram Singh was armed with dang, Didar Singh was armed with gandasi, Buta Singh was armed with barchha (spear) Mehar Singh was armed with dang and Pritam Singh was armed with dang. Jagir Singh accused raised lalkara exhorting his co-accused to catch hold of Lakhwinder Singh and Satpal Singh PWs for being taught a lesson for ploughing the shamlat land. Jagir Singh accused gave gandasi blow hitting on the right side of the head of Lakhwinder Singh PW. Balbir Singh accused gave sharp side kirpan blow hitting near the right wrist of Lakhwinder Singh, Gurbachan Singh dealt dang blow hitting on the right shoulder of Lakhwinder Singh PW. Dilbag Singh gave gandasi blow hitting on the lower part of the right leg of Satpal Singh PW. Avtar Singh dealt kirpan blow hitting on the right hand of Satpal Singh PW. Jagir Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Balbir Singh, Jasbir Singh and Ram Singh and other accused gave injuries with their respective weapons to Satpal Singh PW. On alarm being raised, Jiwan Singh, father of PW Lakhwinder Singh and Bua Singh came to the spot and they witnessed the occurrence. On seeing Jiwan Singh and Bua Singh PWs, the accused took to their heels with their respective weapons.
After appreciating the entire evidence available on record, the trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 29.10.1996 held the appellants guilty and convicted them as under:-
(i) Injury No.1 on the person of Lakhwinder Singh PW has been attributed to Jagir Singh accused with gandasi.
Dr. Gurbachan Singh has no where stated in his statement that this injury was dangerous to life. As is well settled a grievous injury etc. fall within the perview of Section 307 IPC, must be declared by the doctor to be imminently dangerous to life of the patient but for timely effective medical aid. If the evidence tendered CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 12 by the said doctor with regard to the said injury is tested on the above touch stone, then it does not fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. In such circumstances, the offence of Section 307 IPC is converted to the one under Section 326 IPC. Lakhwinder Singh PW has fully corroborated and substantiated the infliction of this injury on his person by Jagir Singh accused. Consequently, Jagir Singh accused is held guilty under Section 326 IPC and is convicted thereunder, whereas he is acquitted of the remaining offences with which, he has been charged.
(ii) Injury No.2 on the person of Lakhwinder Singh PW having been attributed to Balbir Singh accused with kirpan is substantiated by the former in his evidence and the same falls under Section 324 IPC. As such , Balbir Singh accused is held guilty under Section 324 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
(iii) Injury No.3 on the person of Lakhwinder Singh PW having been attributed to Gurbachan Singh accused with dang is corroborated by the former in his testimony. This injury falls under Section 323 IPC. As such, Grubachan Singh is held guilty under Section 323 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas he is acquitted of the remaining offence, with which, he has been charged.
(iv) Injury No.1 on the person of Satpal Singh having been attributed to Avtar Singh accused with Kirpan is established and proved by the former in his testimony. This injury falls under Section 326 IPC. Consequently, Avtar Singh accused is held guilty under Section 326 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
(v) Injury No.2 on the person of Satpal Singh PW has been attributed to Dilbag Singh accused with gandasi and the same is substantiated by the former in his testimony. This injury falls under Section 323 IPC. As such, Dilbag Singh accused is held guilty under Section 323 IPC and convicted thereunder, whereas, he is acquitted of the remaining offences, with which, he has been charged.
and vide order of the same date, sentenced them as under:- CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 13
Gurbachan Singh convict is sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months u/s 323 IPC.
Jagir Singh convict is sentenced u/s 326 IPC to undergo R.I. for three year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I. for four months.
Balbir Singh convict is sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for four months.
Dilbag Singh convict is sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months.
Avtar Singh convict is sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo R.I for four months.
Lastly, it is ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, undergone by any of the convicts during the investigation, enquiry or trial of this case and before the date of this conviction shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on this conviction. The aforesaid appeal was admitted on 22.11.1996 and sentence awarded to the appellants was suspended subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/-each with one surety and personal recognizance bonds in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 14
On 29.4.2009, when the appeal was received for regular hearing, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the appellants despite due notice but still fresh notice was issued to the learned counsel for the appellants for 19.5.2009, but still no body had appeared on behalf of the appellants on the adjourned date, therefore, this Court had appointed Mr.Vineet Kumar Sharma,Advocate, as Amicus-Curiae.
However, on 11.9.2009 Mr.H.S.Sangha,Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and filed an application in the Court alongwith copy of compromise dated 11.7.2009 and copies of affidavits having been sworn in by Avtar Singh son of Bhan Singh, Lakhwinder Singh son of Jiwan Singh and Satpal Singh son of Surjit Singh.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following order was passed:-
An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed in Court today for placing on record compromise effected between the parties.
Registry is directed to put Number on the application. Notice in the application is given to the respondents including the complainant.
At this stage, Mrs.G.K.Mann,Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant accepts notice and states that compromise as stated by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has been effected between the parties. According to the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, two persons, namely Lakhwinder Singh and Satpal Singh, were injured in the occurrence which took place on 21.8.1986, However, Lakhwinder Singh, Satpal Singh and Avtar Singh CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 15 have appeared today in Court alongwith their counsel who had identified them in the Court. They have stated that compromise which is supported by affidavits of Lakhwinder Singh, Satpal Singh and Avtar Singh has been effected between them.
In view of the above, present application is allowed. Original compromise as well as the affidavits signed by Lakhwinder Singh, Satpal Singh and Avtar Singh are taken on record.
On the same day, arguments were heard in the main case and order reserved.
In Criminal Appeal No.761-SB of 1996, Mrs.G.K.Mann, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that out of 13 accused/appellants, Kulwant Singh son of Jiwan Singh, Tara Singh son of Massa Singh, Joginder Singh son of Tara Singh, Jiwan Singh son of Budh Singh and Mohinder Singh son of Tara Singh, all residents of village Dhangal, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, have already expired during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, appeal filed on their behalf has abetted.
It is further submitted that other accused/appellants, namely Harbans Singh, Jagir Singh, Manjit Singh, Bua Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Satpal Singh have been convicted and sentenced under Section 323 IPC which is compoundable under Section 323 (1) Cr.P.C., whereas Wasan Singh appellant was sentenced under Section 324 IPC which is compoundable under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. The only other accused/appellant is Pritam Singh who has been convicted under Section 326 IPC which is not compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C.
On the other hand, Mr.H.S.Sangha, learned counsel CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 16 appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 745-SB of 1996 has submitted that out of five accused/appellants, Jagir Singh son of Jawand Singh, resident of village Ghumarwan, Dilbag Singh son of Taga Singh, resident of village Dhangai and Balbir Singh son of Bhan Singh have already expired during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, appeal qua them has also abetted.
The two accused/appellants, i.e. one Gurbachan Singh has been sentence under Section 323 IPC which is compoundable under Sectison 323 (1) Cr.P.C and other Avtar Singh has been sentenced under Section 326 IPC which is not compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C.
It transpires from the record that the occurrence took place on 20.8.1986 in the fields whereas the accused/appellants in Criminal Appeal No.761-SB of 1996 were ploughing Bajra (millets) crop belonging to Bhan Sin with tractor and the case set up in Criminal Appeal No.745- SB of 1996 is that on 20.8.1986 at about 5.p.m., the occurrence had taken place when the complainant had gone to plough shamlat land. Both the parties belong to the same village.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that as of today, a period of 23 years has passed, Eight persons involved in both the appeals have died their natural death during the pendency of their appeals. Most of the accused/appellants have been sentenced under Section 323 IPC. There has been no civil or criminal cases between the parties during this period of 23 years after the occurrence dated 20.8.1986. Now with the intervention of respectable of the village and the appellants who are now in advance ages have decided to bury the hatchet once for all and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion and have entered into a CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 17 compromise dated 11.7.2009 which has been signed by all the injured/ convicts and separate affidavits to this effect have also been filed.
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the finest hour of justice is the our of compromise and then referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others (1980) 1 SCC 63 to submit that it has been held by Hon'ble Krishna Iyer,J, that "the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion".
Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon following decisions, i.e. Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, Y.Suresh Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 1987 (2) JT 361 and Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1988 Supreme Court,2111. He has further relied upon a decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 327-SB of 1997(Jasdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana) decided on 13.7.2009.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
In Criminal Appeal No.761-SB of 1996, appellants Harbans Singh, Jagir Singh, Manjit Singh, Bua Singh, Lakhwinder Ssingh, and Satpal Singh, have been convicted under Section 323 Cr.P.C. As per Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C. the offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable at the instance of the parties. Appellant Wasan Singh has been sentenced under Section 324 IPC which is compoundable under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. with the intervention of the Court. The only CRA-S 761-SB of 1996 18 accused/appellant Pritam Singh has been sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo R.I. for three years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which sword of protracted trial and conviction has persistently been hanging over the head of the appellant Pritam Singh of about 23 years, therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, his sentence is reduced to one as having been undergone.
So far as Criminal appeal No. 745-SB of 1996, is concerned, in this case, appellant Gurbachan Singh has been sentenced under Section 323 IPC, which is compoundable under Section 320 (1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, his appeal is accepted. However, accused/appellant Avtar Singh has been sentenced under Section 326 IPC, which is not compoundable since he has been sentenced for three years as far back as in the year 1996 and since then, sword of protracted trial and criminal proceedings has been persistently been hanging over his head, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to meet the ends of justice, sentence of appellant Avtar Singh is ordered to the period already undergone.
In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed and accordingly, disposed of.
06.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge