Crl.R. No. 2028 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) Crl.R. No. 2028 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.10..2011 ... Jagtar Singh and another ................Petitioners vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent 2) Crl.R. No. 2052 of 2011 (O&M) ... Parkash Kaur ................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. B.S. Sara, Advocate for the petitioners (in Crl.R.No.2028 of 2011) Sh. Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner (in Crl.R.No.2052 of 2011) Sh. Sandeep Modgil, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... K.C. Puri, J. Vide this order, I intend to dispose of two Criminal Revisions bearing Crl.R. No. 2028 of 2011 titled as Jagtar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and Crl.R. No. 2052 of 2011 titled as Crl.R. No. 2028 of 2011 -2- Parkash Kaur vs. State of Punjab. The law was set in motion by recording the statement of Tarlok Singh, which culminated into FIR No. 65 dated 10.6.1998. As per his statement a dispute regarding land was pending between the complainant Tarlok Singh and Jagtar Singh before this Court. Jagtar Singh had dismantled the water channel lying in his fields. On 8.6.1998 at about 9.00 a.m. Tarlok Singh alongwith his wife Parkash Kaur went to their fields for doing work. Jagtar Singh armed with Gandasi and his wife Joginder Kaur @ Jagiro armed with dang came to their fields. As per allegation made in the FIR Jagtar singh and Joginder Kaur @ Jagir Kaur inflicted injuries on the person of Tarlok Singh and Parkash Kaur. Cross version was recorded on the statement of Jagtar Singh, who has stated that he alongwith his wife were present and Tarlok Singh and Parkash Kaur have inflicted injuries. Two separate trials were conducted. Tarlok Singh died during the pendency of the trial and proceedings against him stand abated and ultimately vide judgment dated 5.5.2008, passed by Sh. Krishan Kant Jain, JMIC, Amritsar, Parkash Kaur was convicted under Sections 326, 324, 323, 34 IPC as under:- Name of convict Offence Punishment. Parkash Kaur U/s 326/34 RI for 3 years, fine of Rs.1000/- IPC in default of payment of fine, SI for 7 days. Parkash Kaur U/s 324/34 RI for six months. IPC Parkash Kaur U/s 323/34 RI for six months. IPC Crl.R. No. 2028 of 2011 -3- Vide separate judgment dated 5.5.2008, passed by Sh. Krishan Kant Jain, JMIC, Amritsar, both Jagtar Singh and Joginder Kaur were also convicted and sentence to undergo imprisonment and fine as under:- Name of convict Offence Punishment. Jagtar Singh U/s 326 IPC RI for 3 years, fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, SI for 7 days. Joginder Kaur U/s 326/34 RI for 3 years, fine of IPC Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine SI for 7 days. Jagtar Singh U/s 325 IPC RI for 1-1/2 years, fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine SI for 7 days. Joginder Kaur U/s 325/ 34 RI for 1-1/2 years, fine of IPC Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine SI for 7 days. Jagtar Singh U/s 324/ 34 RI for 6 months IPC Joginder Kaur U/s 324/ 34 RI for 6 months IPC Jagtar Singh U/s 323/ 34 RI for 6 months IPC Joginder Kaur U/s 323/ 34 RI for 6 months IPC Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 5.5.2008, two separate appeals were filed. Vide two separate judgments dated 16.7.2011, passed by Ms. Neelam Arora, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Amritsar, both the appeals were dismissed. Crl.R. No. 2028 of 2011 -4- Feeling still dissatisfied with the above said judgments dated 16.7.2011 and 5.5.2008, the present two revision petitions have been filed. Counsel for the parties have not challenged the order but have submitted that the matter has been compromised. Original compromise has been placed on the file, which is thumb marked by the parties in the presence of the jail authorities. The same is also signed by Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar. Counsel for both the parties have admitted the correctness of compromise. Custody certificates have also been placed on the file. As per the custody certificate all the three accused have undergone sentence for a period of two months each. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the authority reported as Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (1) RCR 1, has held that although the offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable, but that can be a ground for reducing the sentence. All the petitioners have undergone sentence mentioned above. So, in these circumstances, the sentence awarded to the petitioners stands reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine stands maintained. The revision petitions stand disposed of. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C. Puri ) 3.10.2011 Judge chugh Crl.R. No. 2028 of 2011 -5-