Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sitara Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 26 May, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 66-SB of 2002 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 66-SB of 2002 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.5.2010
Sitara Singh and Others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Jasbir Singh Chahal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab, for the respondent.
Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate
for the complainant.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Criminal Misc. No. 28424 of 2010 Criminal Misc. Application is allowed.
Compromise Annexure C-1 is taken on record. Criminal Appeal No. 66-SB of 2002 The present appeal has been filed by Sitara Singh, Basara Singh, Pathana Singh, Balbir Singh, Amir Singh, Prem Singh and Desa Singh. All these appellants were named as accused in case FIR No. 239 dated 4.9.1995 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur, under Sections 148, 307, 325, 323 and 149 IPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 66-SB of 2002 (O&M) 2
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide its judgment and order dated 15.12.2001, had convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:-
S. No. Name of Offence under Sentence awarded Accused Section 1 All the 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a accused- period of one year and to appellants pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 days each.
2 Balbir Singh 307 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 60 days.
3 Amir Singh, 307 read with Rigorous imprisonment for a Prem Singh, Section 149 period of three years and to Desa Singh, IPC pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
Sitara Singh, each, in default whereof, to Basara Singh further undergo rigorous and Pathana imprisonment for a period of Singh 30 days each.
4 Amir Singh 325 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
5 Balbir Singh, 325 read with Rigorous imprisonment for a Prem Singh, Section 149 period of one year and to Desa Singh, IPC pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, Sitara Singh, in default whereof, to further Basara Singh undergo rigorous and Pathana imprisonment for a period of Singh 20 days each.
Criminal Appeal No. 66-SB of 2002 (O&M) 3 S. No. Name of Offence under Sentence awarded Accused Section 6 Amir Singh, 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a Prem Singh, period of one year and to Desa Singh, pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- Sitara Singh, each, in default whereof, to Basara Singh, further undergo rigorous and Pathana imprisonment for a period of Singh 30 days each. 7 Balbir Singh, 323 read with Rigorous imprisonment for a
Amir Singh, section 149 period of six months each. Prem Singh, IPC Desa Singh, Sitara Singh, Basara Singh and Pathana Singh All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.9.1995 at about 8.30 P.M., the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly in the area of village Gatti Rajoke and with their common object to cause injuries to Jagtar Singh, Jagir Singh, Pathana Singh and Satnam Singh. The injuries caused to Pathana Singh had attracted the offence under Section 307 IPC. The grievous injury suffered by Jagtar Singh, which was caused by a blunt weapon, falls within the ambit of Section 325 IPC. The simple injuries were also caused to two other persons. Satnam Singh, injured, who had suffered three simple injuries, was medicolegally examined by PW.1 Dr. Manmohan Singh Dhillon on 4.9.1995 at about 6.30 A.M. On the same day, Jagir Singh was also medicolegally examined by PW.1 Dr. Manmohan Singh Dhillon. He had suffered four injuries. Injury No.4 was pain in the lower part of the right side of the back. The injuries, suffered by Jagir Singh, were also declared as simple in nature. On the same day at about 6.50 A.M., Criminal Appeal No. 66-SB of 2002 (O&M) 4 PW.1 Dr. Manmohan Singh Dhillon had examined Jagtar Singh. He had suffered three injuries. Injury No.3 was declared as simple. Injury No.1 was declared as grievous which was on the supra clavicular region. Pathana Singh had suffered three injuries. Injuries No.2 and 3 were pain. He was referred to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and his injuries were declared as dangerous to life.
Jagtar Singh appeared as PW.2, Satnam Singh as PW.3, Pathana Singh as PW.4 and Jagir Singh as PW.8. They have deposed against the appellants. Relying upon their testimonies, the trial Court recorded conviction of the appellants and sentenced them, details of which has been mentioned above.
FIR Ex.P9/A was lodged at the instance of Jagtar Singh. Vide a separate application i.e. Criminal Misc. No. 28424 of 2010, filed today, compromise (Annexure C1) has been taken on record. The same be read as a part of this judgment.
Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the appellants had suffered injuries and at the instance of Sitara Singh, cross-version was registered and Pathana Singh, Satnam Singh, Jagir Singh, Jagtar Singh, Balbir Singh, Buta Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Jagga Singh were tried. In cross-version, acquittal of these persons had been recorded. The acquittal of these persons has been challenged in Criminal Revision No. 1848 of 2002.
Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate, has caused appearance for Jagtar Singh, Pathana Singh, Satnam Singh and Jagir Singh. He has submitted at bar that compromise has been arrived at between the parties and he has also vouchsafed the authenticity of the compromise Criminal Appeal No. 66-SB of 2002 (O&M) 5 (Annexure C1).
Learned counsel for the parties, in one breath, have urged before this Court that the parties are maintaining cordial relations and there is complete amity and harmony between the parties. It is further submitted that the occurrence, in the present case, took place on 3.9.1995. In the last 15 years, the parties are maintaining peace between themselves. Learned counsel have also submitted that in the interest of everlasting peace between the parties, they pray to this Court that to end bad blood and feud between the parties and to bury the hatchet, this Court should not send the appellants behind the bars.
This Court, in Chiranji Lal and Others v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 872-SB of 1997 decided on 18.1.2010), relying upon the judgments rendered in Ram Pujan v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1973(2) Supreme Court Cases 456 and Surendra Nath Mohanty and Another v. State of Orissa 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 415, had reduced the sentence of the appellants therein to that of already undergone.
In Dharam Paul and Others v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 732-SB of 1999, decided on 3.2.2010), this Court relied upon the judgment rendered in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case under Section 307 IPC, had reduced the sentence to already undergone taking the factum of compromise as a mitigating circumstance. In Ishwar Singh's case (supra), it was observed as under:-
Criminal Appeal No. 66-SB of 2002 (O&M) 6
"14. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan & Ors. v.
Gaanapathy Velar, (2001)10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., JT 1988(3) SC 366(1), this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) RCR (Crl.) 332 : AIR 1988 SC 2111, such offence was ordered to be compounded".
In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, which have been noticed above and the case law relied, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellants behind the bars.
Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to that of already undergone.
With the observations made above, the present criminal appeal is disposed of.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 26, 2010 "DK"