Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 468 (UTT)

Amar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-08-14

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2007, passed in Case No.1758 of 2006, State vs. Amar Singh and another, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the case”), by it, the revisionists were convicted and sentenced under Sections 326 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The challenge has also been made to the judgment and order dated 30.09.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal no.67 of 2007, Amar Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/1st Fast Track Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar. This order has upheld the order dated 20.09.2007, passed in the case. 3. Initially this Court had held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; there is no error, illegality and propriety in the judgments and orders and the revision was accordingly dismissed on 06.06.2022. It may be noted that at the time of hearing on 06.06.2022, the revisionists were not appeared, they were not heard. The order dated 06.06.2022 was challenged by the revisionists in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 9471 of 2022, Amar Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand (“SLP (Cri.”), which was withdrawn with the liberty to move compounding application before this Court. The order dated 17.10.2022, passed in SLP (Cri.) is as follows:- “1. After arguing the cause for some time, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeking permission to withdraw the instant petition, with liberty to approach the High Court for compounding of the offence on the premise that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and want to live their disputes and want to live a peaceful life as neighbors. 2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforementioned.” 4. Thereafter, the revisionists filed a recall application so that compounding application may be decided. Keeping in view the liberty that was granted to the revisionists by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court allowed the recall application. On 11.08.2022, the Court proceeded to decide the compounding application, but the informant and the son of the injured were not present on that date. Both the revisionists have joined the proceedings on 11.08.2022 and have verified the contents of the compromise. 5. On 11.08.2022, the Court proceeded to decide the compounding application, but the informant and the son of the injured were not present on that date. Both the revisionists have joined the proceedings on 11.08.2022 and have verified the contents of the compromise. 5. Today, Smt. Kashmiri Devi, the informant and Jagdeep Singh son of the injured, both have joined the proceedings through video conferencing duly identified by their counsel Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt. It is admitted that injured Jogender Singh has already died. Both the informant as well as the son of the injured has verified the compromise. They would submit that they have settled the dispute and they do not want to proceed with the matter. 6. The parties have compounded the offence. What would be its effect? 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that both the revisionists are unwell. The revisionist no.1 Amar Singh is 75 years of age. He is suffering with various ailments. The revisionist no.2 Manjeet Singh is though 49 years of age, but he is unwell, HIV positive and partially paralytic also. They have been in jail for more than a year now. Therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period which they have already undergone based on the compounding between the parties. He would submit that, in fact, the incident took place some times in the year 1996. 8. Learned counsel for the informant as well as the son of the injured does not dispute the factual position as submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists. He would submit that the parties have settled the dispute. They are neighbors. It has been a old dispute. 9. Even after post conviction, the compounding of offences may be entertained by this Court, in view of the judgment in the case of Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834. 10. In the case of Ramgopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the factors that should considered while compounding application is considered. 11. Learned State counsel under instructions would submit that both the revisionists are unwell. He admits about the age of the revisionists and ailment of both of them as stated by learned counsel for the revisionists. 12. A few facts are necessary to be appreciated. They are as follows:- (i) The incident took place on 03.01.1996. (ii) Parties are neighbors. 11. Learned State counsel under instructions would submit that both the revisionists are unwell. He admits about the age of the revisionists and ailment of both of them as stated by learned counsel for the revisionists. 12. A few facts are necessary to be appreciated. They are as follows:- (i) The incident took place on 03.01.1996. (ii) Parties are neighbors. (ii) There was no serious dispute between the parties. (iv) The revisionist no.1 Amar Singh is 75 years of age now. He is unwell. (v) The revisionist no.2 Manjeet Singh is unwell and he is partly paralytic also. 13. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that till 09.08.2023, the revisionist no.1 Amar Singh had already undergone the sentence of 1 years 4 month and 19 days and till that date, the revisionist no.2 Manjeet Singh had undergone sentence 1 year 4 months and 22 days. Both the revisionists have been convicted under Sections 326 read with 34 IPC with a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-. 14. Having considered the entirety of fact, particularly the age and ailment of the revisionists as well as the fact that the parties have entered into the compromise and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on the revisionists is reduced to the period, which they have already undergone. 15. The revision is partly allowed. 16. The sentence imposed upon the revisionists is reduced to the period which they have already undergone in this case. 17. The revisionists are in custody. Let they be released forthwith, if they are not wanted in any other case. 18. The compounding application stands disposed of accordingly. 19. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded immediately to the court as well as to the jail concerned.