IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 133 of 2009 Date of decision: February 3, 2009 Baljit Singh and Others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. D.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Baljit Singh and others against the order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 11.7.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira convicting them for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with under Section 34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) has been dismissed. The judgment and order of the trial Court has been upheld with the modification that the period during which the petitioners had remained in custody during investigation and trial was ordered to be adjusted towards their sentence. The FIR in the case was registered on the statement of Joga Singh complainant who had received injuries. On receiving intimation about injury, Gurmeet Singh ASI along with other police officials reached the Primary Health Centre, Kot Ise Khan and obtained an opinion regarding the fitness of the injured to make a statement. The injured Joga Singh was declared fit to make a statement and his statement was recorded. It was stated by the complainant Joga Singh that he had a dispute with Pritam Singh (since deceased) (father of Baljit Singh and Baldev Singh Crl. Revision No. 133 of 2009 [2] Petitioners No.1 and 2). The dispute was regarding land measuring 37 kanals 17 marlas. The complainant had sown wheat crop in the said land. He and his uncle Devinder Singh went towards the land in dispute. At about 9.30 a.m., when they reached the land in dispute then Baldev Singh (petitioner No.2) armed with gandasi, Baljit Singh (petitioner No.1) armed with gandasi, Bakhshish Singh (petitioner No.3) armed with gandasi and Pritam Singh (since deceased) armed with Sua came from the field of wheat crop. Bakhshish Singh (petitioner No.3) raised a ‘lalkara’ that complainant be taught a lesson for entering in their fields. On this, Baldev Singh (petitioner No.2) gave gandasi blow which hit above the forehead of the complainant. Baljit Singh (petitioner No.1) also gave a gandasi blow which hit on the left side of the head above the ear of the complainant. Pritam Singh gave three sua blows which hit the complainant on his left ankle, left leg and on the front of his right leg and he (complainant) fell down. Then the petitioners Bakhshish Singh, Baldev Singh and Baljit Singh gave blows to the complainant from the reverse side of the gandasi which hit on his fingers and on the back side of his hands. The uncle of the complainant namely Devinder Singh raised an alarm on which all the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. Ajaib Singh also reached at the spot and got the complainant admitted in the Civil Hospital Kot Ise Khan, where his medical examination was conducted by the doctor. The motive behind the occurrence was that they have a dispute of land with Pritam Singh. Action may be taken against the accused. On the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Zira convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 34 IPC. They were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offences under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Besides, sentenced to other imprisonment for the offences under Sections 324/34 IPC and 323 read with Section 34 IPC which sentences are ordered to Crl. Revision No. 133 of 2009 [3] run concurrently. The petitioners were also ordered to pay fine which was ordered to be paid to the injured-complainant Joga Singh as compensation according to rules. The petitioner aggrieved against the order preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide her impugned order dated 9.1.2009 has dismissed the same except with the modification that the period during which the petitioners remained in custody during investigation and trial would be adjusted towards their sentence. In the revision that has been filed, it has primarily been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the petitioners have compromised the matter with Joga Singh complainant. A reference has been made to the compromise dated 28.4.2007 (Annexure P4). It is also submitted that the other cases that were pending between the parties have been disposed of on the basis of said compromise. The details of which are mentioned in Para 2 of the grounds of revision. Therefore, it is submitted that though the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable, however, the fact of compromise is a relevant circumstance to be kept in mind while imposing the sentence. Therefore, it is submitted that the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to that already gone. Baldev Singh (petitioner No.2) and Bakhshish Singh (petitioner No.3) have undergone sentence of imprisonment of one month and twenty-one days till 30.1.2009 and Baljit Singh (petitioner No.1) has undergone two months and twenty four days of imprisonment as per the custody certificates that have been filed in Court today and are taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner places strong reliance on the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1 (SC) . In response learned counsel for the State has submitted that keeping in view the fact that the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable, the petitioners cannot compound the same. Therefore, the judgment and order passed Crl. Revision No. 133 of 2009 [4] by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners with the modifications regarding the counting of period of imprisonment that has been undergone by the petitioners during investigation and trial is to be adjusted is just and proper and the petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the record. Insofar as the order regarding the conviction of the petitioners is concerned, the same warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It may be noticed that the order convicting the petitioners is based on sound reasons and learned counsel for the petitioner does not seriously dispute the same. However, insofar as the sentence which has been imposed, it may be noticed that the Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh’s case (Supra) has held that where parties are entering into compromise in an offence which was not a compoundable offence under Section 320 CrPC, it is not appropriate to order compounding by ignoring the statutory provisions. However, while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance, which the Court may keep in mind. A perusal of the agreement dated 28.4.2007 (Annexure P4) which has been entered into between the parties, it may be noticed shows that the dispute regarding land measuring 37 kanals 17 marlas situated in the area of Village Kot Ise Khan Tehsil Moga has been settled and the possession of the said land would remain with Joga Singh. It has been agreed that the parties would withdraw their legal proceedings against each other and for this purpose, each party will get necessary writing from the other. Besides, out of the above said land measuring 37 kanals 17 marlas, Baljit Singh (petitioner No.1) and Baldev Singh (petitioner No.2) would vacate the land by removing trees etc. by 8.5.2007 and will lift any material lying there. The allotted water-turn of 13 hours 25 minutes of Joga Singh which is pending was given as per Crl. Revision No. 133 of 2009 [5] the arbitration decision and the petitioners No.1 and 2 namely Baljit Singh and Baldev Singh would get 11 hours 35 minutes water turn for their land. Besides, other demarcations have also been ordered. It is also recorded that criminal cases pending between both the parties in different Courts shall be withdrawn against each other and neither any party shall backtrack. In consequence of the said decision, the cases between the parties have been withdrawn. Case FIR No. 189 dated 11.12.1996, under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 34 IPC, Police Station Dharamkot and cross case in the same FIR under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 34 IPC was quashed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Petition No. M-51547 of 2007 on 17.12.2008 on the basis of compromise (Annexure P4). Similarly another criminal case FIR No.91 dated 12.6.1995 under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 34 IPC, Police Station Dharamkot and cross case as well as complaint filed by Joga Singh complainant. Summoning order dated 9.6.2000 passed by the trial Court under Sections 326, 324, 325, 323 and 34 IPC was quashed by this Hon’ble Court in Crl. Misc. Petition No. M-50815 of 2007 on 14.11.2008 on the basis of compromise (Annexure P4). Besides, another criminal case between the same parties i.e. FIR No. 65 dated 29.4.2005, under Sections 427, 435, 447 and 34 IPC was also quashed by this Court inCrl. Misc. Petition No. M-51312 of 2007 on 14.11.2008 on the basis of compromise (Annexure P4). Therefore, indeed it may be noticed that the dispute in the present case has been amicably resolved and the parties who are co-villagers have resolved their disputes. With the disputes being settled, they would be able to live happily in their village. Joga Singh complainant is present in Court and is identified by his counsel Mr. D.S. Sidhu, Advocate. It is submitted by the learned counsel on instructions from Joga Singh that the compromise has been entered into by him without any kind of pressure or undue influence and he has no objection in case the sentence that has been imposed on the petitioners is reduced to that already Crl. Revision No. 133 of 2009 [6] undergone. In the facts and circumstances, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction, the judgment and order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga is modified to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to that already undergone. The petitioners, if not wanted in any other case, be released forthwith. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 3, 2009 amit