Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1536 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-11-11

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. (Oral) - Ranjit Singh and his brother Ajit Singh have filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgments of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana dated 6.3.1999 and of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 10.10.2003, whereby the conviction of the present petitioners has been maintained. 2. It is worth mentioning here that the present petitioners along with one Jagdish Singh alias Ujagar Singh were convicted by the learned trial Court under Sections 326/34 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months. The present two petitioners were in fact on bail during the trial whereas their co-accused Jagdish Singh alias Ujagar Singh was in custody and for this reason the period of detention of Jagdish Singh alias Ujagar Singh was set off against the period of sentence awarded to him. The present petitioners along with Jagdish Singh then preferred an appeal. The same also stands dismissed vide impugned judge ment dated 10.10.2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the sentence of two years is reduced to one year. Since Jagdish Singh alias Ujagar Singh had already undergone his period of sentence, he has not preferred the present revision petition and consequently, Ranjit Singh and Ajit Singh have knocked the doors of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead has confined his arguments in regard to the quantum of sentence only on the ground that both the parties have since entered into compromise after the dismissal of the appeal and that injured Pardeep Singh has also tendered an affidavit. He relies upon Annexure P-1 and P-2 in this context. The learned counsel further contends that the father of the complainant and the father of the petitioners are real brothers and the compromise which has now been effected between the two close relations would in fact promote the peace amity and harmony. It would in fact bring an end to bad blood feud. 4. The Ld. counsel further submits that both the petitioners have already undergone about two months of their substantive sentence and that keeping in view the compromise effected between the parties, the actually awarded sentence of one year may be reduced to the period already undergone. It would in fact bring an end to bad blood feud. 4. The Ld. counsel further submits that both the petitioners have already undergone about two months of their substantive sentence and that keeping in view the compromise effected between the parties, the actually awarded sentence of one year may be reduced to the period already undergone. In support of his contentions, he relies upon Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2418 and two judgments of this Court rendered in Santokh Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1978 C.L.R. (Pb.& Hr.) 124 and Ram Chander and others v. The State of Haryana, 1987(2) RCR (P&H) 151. 5. The learned State counsel has refuted the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The complainant is present in the Court. He owns the compromise deed Annexure P-1 and his affidavit Annexure P-2 dated 3.11.2003. Ram Pujan and others case (supra) squarely covers the case of the petitioners. 7. No doubt that the offence for which the petitioners have been convicted is non-compoundable but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. In my view, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. 8. So far as sentence of fine is concerned, it has been stated at the Bar that the fine already stands deposited in the trial court itself. 9. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present revision petition is dismissed. 10. As both the petitioners are in custody, they shall be released forthwith. Petition allowed.