Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 323 (PNJ)

Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-02-23

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J 1. Affidavit on behalf of complainant has been filed in the Court, in compliance of order dated 09.01.2012 and the same is taken on record. 2. Petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 12.01.2010 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ajnala in Criminal case No.404/23.10.01/3.4.2006 arising out of FIR No.83 dated 4.9.2001 under Sections 326/324/34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Ramdas and was sentenced to undergo as under:- 1. U/s 326 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of two years and Rs. 500/-(Rs. Five hundred only) fine. In default of payment of fine Rigorous Imprisonment of fifteen days. 2. U/s 324 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment of one year and Rs.500/-(Rs. Five hundred only) fine. In default of payment of fine Rigorous Imprisonment of fifteen days. All the substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 3. The conviction of the petitioner was maintained by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 6.9.2011. However, the sentence was modified as under:- 1. U/s 326 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with fine of Rs.500/-. in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. U/s 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days 4. Still not satisfied, the accused-petitioner has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned judgments. During the pendency of this revision petition, Criminal Misc.No.62679 of 2011 was filed, to place on record the compromise effected between the petitioner, as well as complainant, who are stated to be real brothers. 5. The terms of the aforesaid compromise reads thus:- 1. That on 31.08.2011 the first party had got registered a case FIR No.83/2001 under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC Police Station Ramdass, District Majitha against second party. 2. That the second party had been convicted by the Illaqa Magistrate in the above case and the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court and now the case is pending in the High Court. 3. That on intervention of the relatives the party No.1 and party No.2 have arrived at compromise. Both the parties are real brother they have common land and house and both of them have to live together at the same place for the times to come. 3. That on intervention of the relatives the party No.1 and party No.2 have arrived at compromise. Both the parties are real brother they have common land and house and both of them have to live together at the same place for the times to come. Therefore, the compromise has been made between the parties to sustain affection and good relations between the parties. 4. That according to the compromise if the party No.2 is acquitted or granted bail by the Court, the party No.1 shall have no objection. According to the compromise the party No.1 shall be bound to give any statement in the Court. 5. That party No.1 is satisfied with this compromise and he does not have any grudge in his heart. 6. That the compromise has been arrived at by party No.1 without any pressure or threat so that party No.2 shall get benefit.” 6. The complainant has also filed an affidavit today in the Court verifying the genuineness of compromise as placed on record of this case. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not find fault with the judgments of the Courts below convicting the petitioner. 8. However, it was contended that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically the compromise effected between the parties, this Court may consider the question with regard to reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner in the present case. 9. Petitioner has already undergone a period of more than 05 months of substantive sentence, out of the total sentence. 10. Keeping in view the compromise effected between the parties, the respondent-complainant who is real brother of the petitioner states that he has no objection, if the petitioner is acquitted from the case in hand. This Court finds a fit case where it will serve the interest of justice, if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. 11. The petitioner shall deposit a fine within two months from today, if not deposit earlier. 12. But for the aforesaid modification in the sentence awarded to the petitioner, this petition fails and is disposed of as such. Petition disposed of.