Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 October, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S No. 711-SB of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: October 8, 2012
Ram Kumar and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate,
for the Appellants.
Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Jaswinder Singh Randhawa, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. The appellants, Ram Kumar, Satpal, Mahinder Singh, Surinder Singh @ Sonu, Babli, Ram Rattan and Inderjit @ Tony, were held guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149, 452/149 and 506, IPC, vide judgment dated 6.2.2009, and sentenced as under:-
1. Section 148, IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each, besides payment of fine of `500/-
each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
2. Section 323 read Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months with Section 149, each, besides payment of fine of `500/- IPC. each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
3. Section 325 read Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each, with Section 149, besides payment of fine of `1,000/- each IPC. and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
CRA-S No. 711-SB of 2009 (O&M) 2
4. Section 326 read Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each, with Section 149, besides payment of fine of `2,000/- each IPC. and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
5. Section 452 read Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each, with Section 149, besides payment of fine of `1,000/- each IPC. and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
6. Section 506, IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each, besides payment of fine of `1,000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. All the convicts filed the present appeal before this Court and the same was admitted vide order dated 18.3.2009. The sentence of the appellants were suspended on different dates by this Court.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants resolved their dispute with the injured persons and moved an application before this Court for deciding the appeal in view of the compromise effected between them.
4. Vide order dated 7.12.2011, this Court directed the appellants and the injured-complainant-respondent Nos. 2 to 5, namely, Balwan, Dharamveer, Ram Mehar and Smt. Santro Devi, to appear before the learned Trial Court on 11.1.2012 for getting their statements recorded in support of the compromise. The said Court was directed to transmit the statements so recorded to this Court.
5. In compliance of the above, appellants No. 1 to 7 and respondent Nos. 2 to 5, did appear before the learned Trial Court and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the CRA-S No. 711-SB of 2009 (O&M) 3 compromise. The injured persons stated that the dispute had already been settled with the intervention of their relatives, family friends and the Panchayat of their village, and that the compromise was voluntary one, without coercion, pressure of any kind and for their betterment. Similar were the statements suffered by appellants No. 1 to 7.
6. Learned counsel for the injured-respondents No. 2 to 5, namely, Balwan, Dharamveer, Ram Mehar and Smt. Santro Devi, admits the factum of the compromise. He has no objection if the present appeal is decided and the substantive sentence of the appellants is reduced keeping in view the compromise effected between the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the State has produced the affidavits of Jagjit Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, dated 28.2.2011, showing the custody period suffered by appellants No. 1 to 7, which are taken on record. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection if the present appeal is disposed of in view of the compromise effected between the private parties.
8. Learned counsel for appellants No. 1 to 7 at the very outset submits that he does not press this appeal on merits, but confine his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the private parties have amicably resolved their dispute. He further submits that the dispute was of personal nature. The Panchayat of the village, the relatives and the friends have made both the parties understand and there is no ill-will amongst them. He further submits that appellants No. CRA-S No. 711-SB of 2009 (O&M) 4 1 and 2, Ram Kumar and Satpal, have suffered incarceration for more than one year; appellant No. 3, Mahinder Singh, for more than four months; appellant No. 4, Surinder Singh @ Sonu, for 8 months and 14 days; while appellants No. 5, 6 and 7, namely, Babli, Ram Rattan and Inderjit @ Tony, have suffered incarceration for 5 months and approximately 15 days. As such their sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
10. The incident had taken place on the day of Faag (Hola). The injured persons have amicably sorted out their dispute with the appellants. Now there is no animosity or ill-will amongst them. The affidavits produced by the learned State counsel reveal the period of incarceration suffered by the appellants as on 28.2.2011, which is as follows:-
Appellant No. 1, Ram Kumar. 1 year and 4 days. Appellant No. 2, Satpal. 1 year, 1 month and 4 days. Appellant No. 3, Mahinder Singh 4 months and 29 days. Appellant No. 4, Surinder Singh 9 months and 5 days. @ Sonu Appellant No. 5, Babli. 5 months and 14 days. Appellant No. 6, Ram Rattan. 5 months and 15 days. Appellant No. 7, Inderjit @ Tony 5 months and 14 days.
11. A perusal of the affidavits further reveals that no other criminal case is pending against any of the appellants. However, learned counsel for the State pointed out that appellant No. 1, Ram Kumar, was facing prosecution in a complaint case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 365 and 506 read CRA-S No. 711-SB of 2009 (O&M) 5 with Section 149, IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants submits at this stage that in the said complaint case, which was pending against appellant No. 1, Ram Kumar, compromise was effected and he has been discharged in the said complaint case.
12. Keeping in view the factum of the compromise and the period of incarceration suffered by each of the appellants, their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already suffered by each one of them. However, the sentence of fine and the default clause thereof imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain un-disturbed.
13. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
14. The Registry is directed to release the amount of `20,000/-, which was deposited in terms of the order dated 8.7.2010, passed by this Court in CRM No. 33105 of 2010, in favour of the injured-respondents No. 2 to 5, namely, Balwan, Dharamveer, Ram Mehar and Smt. Santro Devi, in equal shares.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
October 8, 2012 JUDGE
Pkapoor