Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3003 (PNJ)

Leela Singh v. State of Haryana

2010-11-09

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J. - The accused-appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul (hereinafter referred as the trial Court) for the offences punishable under Sections 147/365/367 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 290 dated 25.8.1998, registered at Police Station Mahendergarh for forcibly abducting and causing injuries mercilessly to one Jagdish, Sarpanch of village Akoda when he along with one Jogender of village Akoda had gone to Mahendergarh to meet Block Development and Panchayat Officer and to do other panchayat work. 2. The learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide impugned judgment and order dated 9/11.7.2001, has convicted the accused-appellants for the commission of offence under Section 365/323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each for the offence punishable under Section 365 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment/order of conviction/sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. The present appeal was admitted on 2.8.2001 and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail by this Court. 5. An affidavit has been filed by complainant-Jagdish in Court today that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties, which is mark X and taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment/order of conviction/sentence on merits. However, he has prayed for reduction of sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by taking leniency. The appellants are stated to have suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 12 years as the FIR is dated 25.8.1998 and they have not mis-used the concession of bail. 7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that since offence is proved, so no leniency should be shown. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. 7. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that since offence is proved, so no leniency should be shown. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In Hirabhai Jhaverbhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2010(2) RCR (Criminal) 824, Honble the Supreme Court observed as under : "From the record, it is evident that the incident in question took place on July 23, 1986. Pursuant to the order dated January 29, 2010 passed by this Court in the instant matter, the complainant and injured are impleaded as respondents and are represented through their learned counsel. They have filed affidavit stating that the disputes between the parties have been settled with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. They have also expressed their willingness to compound the offence. This Court finds that after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 from June 23, 2006 the offence under section 324 Indian Penal Code is made non-compoundable. However, in this case offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code was committed on July 23, 1986 on which date it was compoundable with the permission of the Court. As the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 is not applicable to the facts of the,case, offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code would be compoundable with the permission of the Court. In view of the statement, made by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in their affidavit and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, permission to compound the offence deserves to be granted to the original complainant and the injured." 10. It has also been held by the Honble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, as under : "In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which, the Court may keep in mind." 11. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which, the Court may keep in mind." 11. Keeping in view the fact that the appellants have suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 12 years, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 365/323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code stands maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine of the appellants is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- each besides the fine imposed by the learned trial Court which shall be deposited by them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the amount of enhanced fine of Rs. 60,000/-, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the injured and Rs. 10,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses. 12. In case of non-payment of amount of enhanced fine, the present appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 13. With the above modification/direction, the present appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.