Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 187 (PNJ)

Sat Pal v. State Of Haryana

2005-02-02

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Satpal, Dalbir Singh, Balwan sons of Udey Singh and Smt. Natho Devi, wife of Udey Singh were booked in a case bearing FIR No. 228 dated 17.12.1991, under Sections 323, 307, 325 read with Section 34 IPC registered at police station Kalayat (District Kaithal). Vide judgment dated 4/6.5.1996 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, they stand convicted under Sections 452, 323/34 and 308/34 IPC. Except Satpal appellant, who has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years under Section 308 IPC, the other three appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for two years only under this count. However, the sentence of fine (Rs. 1,000/-) is same with regard to all the four appellants. For the offence under Section 452 IPC, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer further RI for six months. For the offence under Section 323 IPC, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default whereof to suffer further RI for one month. 2. Since all the appellants were on bail except Satpal, who was sentenced to undergo RI for four years, the remaining three appellants got interim bail from the trial Court. Their interim bail was ultimately confirmed by this Court at the time of admission of the appeal. Subsequently, the substantive sentence of Satpal was also suspended after he remained in custody for another two months after suffering conviction. 3. Gopal son of Miya Singh is the complainant. He and his father are the injured. Miya Singh and Udey Singh are real brothers. In this way, the complainant and the appellants are closely related to each other. 4. During pendency of the instant appeal, both the sides entered into a compromise. An application (Crl. Misc. No. 7248 of 2005) has been moved today for placing on record the compromise dated 19.1.2005. The said compromise is signed by Gopal and Miya Singh injured as also by all the appellants. Both the sides have been identified by their respective counsel. An affidavit of Miya Singh and Gopal has also been tendered along with the compromise. Vide my separate order of even date, the compromise along with the affidavit has been taken on record. The said compromise is signed by Gopal and Miya Singh injured as also by all the appellants. Both the sides have been identified by their respective counsel. An affidavit of Miya Singh and Gopal has also been tendered along with the compromise. Vide my separate order of even date, the compromise along with the affidavit has been taken on record. All the aforesaid documents shall now be read as part of the instant appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Bhoop Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Jitender Talwar Advocate for the State of Haryana and Mr. Gopal Sharma Advocate for the complainant side. 6. The factum of compromise has been admitted by learned counsel for the complainant. 7. Mr. Bhoop Singh, without joining any issue on merits of the appeal, at the very out-set prays for reduction in the substantive sentence on the basis of the aforesaid compromise, contending that both the sides are closely related to each other; that after registration of the present case, there has been no such incident between the parties; that they are living peacefully for the last many years and intend to live peacefully in future also; that no ill-will or grudge is left in the hearts of either side and that in view of the aforesaid facts, if the case of the appellants is considered for reduction in their quantum of sentence, it would advance justice. 8. The learned counsel makes a statement at the Bar, which is otherwise not disputed by the learned State counsel or even by learned counsel for the complainant that Satpal appellant remained in custody for one month and 28 days during trial and after his conviction, his substantive sentence was suspended after two months i.e. in all he has remained in four months. According to him, Dalbir Singh and Balwan appellants remained in custody for 1 month and 23 days, whereas Natho Devi appellant remained in custody for two days only. 9. According to him, Dalbir Singh and Balwan appellants remained in custody for 1 month and 23 days, whereas Natho Devi appellant remained in custody for two days only. 9. No doubt, some of the offences involved in this case being non- compoundable, this Court cannot accord permission to compound the said offences, yet the compromise arrived at between the parties can certainly be taken into account for taking a lenient view with regard to the quantum of sentence in the light of a very recent decision rendered by Honble Supreme Court in Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, 2005(1) RCR(Criminal) 306 (SC), wherein their Lordships in a case under Section 326 IPC (offence being non- compoundable) did not allow the parties to compound the offence, but keeping in view the fact that the incident was ten years old and the parties were settling the dispute, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by them. In another judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in Jalaluddin v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 SCC(Crl.) 1243, again a case of Section 326 IPC, the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant on account of the complainant being closely related to the accused and both of them living amicably. Another judgment of Honble Supreme Court rendered in Ram Ekbal Upadhya and others v. State of Bihar, 2003 SCC(Cri) 1011 can also be read with advantage. 10. In the instant case also, the occurrence relates to the year 1991. 11. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. So ordered. However, the sentence of fine as awarded by the trial Court, shall remain intact. 12. At this juncture, Mr. Bhoop Singh states that except Satpal, all the other appellants have already deposited the amount of fine before the trial Court, whereas the order of sentence of fine qua Satpal was stayed by this Court. 13. Satpal appellant is now directed to deposit the amount of fine awarded to him by the trial Court on all the three counts (Rs. Bhoop Singh states that except Satpal, all the other appellants have already deposited the amount of fine before the trial Court, whereas the order of sentence of fine qua Satpal was stayed by this Court. 13. Satpal appellant is now directed to deposit the amount of fine awarded to him by the trial Court on all the three counts (Rs. 2,200/-), within one month from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment, failing which he shall undergo RI for two months on each count. 14. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed on merits except with the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above.