Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahabir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 18 November, 2011
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRA NO. 985-SB OF 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA NO. 985-SB OF 2002
DECIDED ON- November 18,2011
Mahabir and others ......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, D.A. G. Haryana.
Complainant Rajesh with his counsel Mr.G.N.Malik,Advocate,
****
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, on 10.5.2002.
At the outset the learned counsel for the appellants states that the matter has been compromised by the complainant, Rajesh, with the appellants Mahavir, Kuka and Rajpal. He has also placed on record the written compromise Ex.C/1. In view of the same, submits that he does not want to argue the case on merits and the appellants may be dealt with sympathetically so far as the sentence part is concerned.
Statement of Rajesh son of Dara Singh, resident of Didwara, CRA NO. 985-SB OF 2002 2 District Jind, has been recorded by this Court, wherein he admitted the factum of compromise. The complainant has further stated that he would be satisfied if appellants are acquitted or their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
The brief facts of the case are that on 9.1.2000, Rajesh Kumar complainant met the police party and got recorded his statement to the effect that he was running a kiryana shop in a room owned by Nathu, caste Balmiki, at Balmiki Mohalla village Didwara. On 6.1.2000, an altercation took place between him (complainant) and Rajpal. An application was presented before the police regarding the said incident. He further stated that on 8.1.2000 at about 4:00 pm, Rajpal appellant came to his shop and threatened him to teach a lesson for moving the application with the police and further told that his shop would be set on fire. In the evening, the complainant closed his shop and went to his house. At about 3:00 am, Sukhbir son of Nathu Ram came at the house of Rajesh and told that his shop had been set on fire. He rushed to his shop and found that the articles lying inside the shop had turned into ashes. The complainant suspected the three appellants to have set his shop on fire. Accordingly, a case under Section 436, IPC was registered at Police Station, Safidon. The accused were arrested and after completion of the formalities of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was submitted before the Area Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session, where charge under Section 436, IPC was framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined in terms of Section 313 Cr. P.C and they once again denied the allegations and pleaded false implications. CRA NO. 985-SB OF 2002 3
In defence evidence, Jai Singh was examined as DW1 who deposed that about 2-1/4 years ago, complainant Rajesh with the assistance of Chuhar was shifting the goods from his shop and on the next morning, he came to know that his shop had caught fire.
After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court held all the appellants guilty and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each of the accused was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.
There is no illegality, infirmity or mis-reading of evidence in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The appellants have rightly been held guilty. Even otherwise, counsel for the appellants has proposed not to address arguments on merits. The material has been scanned just to satisfy the propriety of the judgment, whereby the appellants were held guilty.
The matter has since been compromised. The compromise deed is reduced into writing and placed on record as Ex.C/1. Statement of complainant Rajesh has also been recorded on oath wherein he has specifically admitted the factum of compromise and execution of Ex.C/1. The complainant has been identified by his counsel, Mr. G.N.Malik, Advocate, who also affirmed the execution of the compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of the compromise Ex.C/1 and the statement made by complainant Rajesh, submits that the appellants may be acquitted.
` The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. He submits that the CRA NO. 985-SB OF 2002 4 offence punishable under Section 436, IPC is non-compoundable and hence, the provisions of Section 320, Cr. P.C will not come to the rescue of the appellants.
No doubt on the basis of the compromise, appellants cannot be acquitted in a non-compoundable offence but certainly the matter can be considered for reduction of sentence. In Amarnath Shukla v. State of Uttaranchal, 2009(4) RCR(Crl.) 488, the Hon'ble Apex Court had dealt with a similar case wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 436, IPC. In that case also, during the pendency of the appeal, the matter was compromised and the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to allow the compounding of the offence but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, i.e about seven months, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case.
In the case in hand, the appellants Mahavir and Rajpal have undergone approximately two years of the substantive sentence while Kuka Ram has spent more than eight months in custody. The matter has been compromised and the complainant while appearing before this Court, has admitted the factum of the execution of compromise Ex.C/1. The incident alleged to have taken place in the year 2000 and since then appellants have been facing the agony of the trial and the appeal. In the year 2003, the sentence of the appellants was suspended by this Court and they were released from jail. For the last about 8 years they have been living a peaceful life with harmonious relations and no untoward incident has occurred.
In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellants without disturbing the order of fine imposed by the learned trial Court.
CRA NO. 985-SB OF 2002 5
Accordingly, the appeal is party allowed in the terms stated above.
November 18, 2011 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) mamta JUDGE