CRA No.361-SB of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRA No.361-SB of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.12.2010 Ramehar alias Bittu and another ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana …Respondent (2) CRA No.420-SB of 2001 (O&M) Varinder ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent (3) CRA No.402-SB of 2001 (O&M) Navin and another ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN **** Present: Mr. B S Saroha, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the complainant-respondent No.2. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1 CRA No.361-SB of 2001 1. This judgment of mine shall dispose of three appeals, namely, CRA Nos.361-SB, 420-SB and 402-SB of 2001, having arisen out of the common judgment and order dated 17.03.2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), whereby the accused (herein appellants), have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 148 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 324 IPC. Furthermore, appellants, namely, Navin, Sunil, Ramehar and Rmed have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 307 IPC. Appellant, Virender Singh, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. However, all the substances sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case in hand, as emanating from the record, are that on 22.12.1997, HC Ranbir Singh, received information regarding admission of Anil Kumar son of Bhagwan Sarup in PGI Rohtak whereupon, he along with other police officials, rushed to the hospital and sought opinion of the doctor regarding 2 CRA No.361-SB of 2001 fitness of the injured-Anil Kumar to make statement. However, Anil Kumar was declared unfit to make the statement by the doctor and, therefore, statement of his brother, Sanjiv Kumar, was recorded. It was alleged that on 21.12.1997 at about 2.00 p.m., he along with his brother, Anil Kumar (injured), and one Dharmender, was going near the house bearing No.188, Sector 15, Sonepat, where they were encircled by some young persons. One of the accused asked them as to who was Anil Kumar among them. When Anil Kumar revealed his identity, he was inflicted knife blows in the abdomen and hip by one of the accused. Thereafter, all the accused managed to escape from the place of occurrence. 3. On the basis of aforesaid statement, a case under Section 324 IPC was registered against the accused. However, on 24.12.1997, when injured-Anil Kumar was declared fit to make statement, he stated before HC Ranbir Singh, Investigating Officer, that on 21.12.1997, he along with his brother, namely, Sanjiv Kumar, and one Dharmender, had been apprehended by five persons, namely, Virender Singh, Navin, Suneel, Ramehar and Umed Singh, who were known to him prior to the occurrence also. All the five accused, in furtherance of their common intention came forward and asked as to who was Anil Kumar among them and when the complainant revealed his identity, Virender, accused, exhorted his co- accused to teach him a lesson as Anil Kumar had beaten his brother Narender. Thereafter, Navin caught hold of him from his collar and Umed inflicted fist blows on his person. Accused Suneel hugged him and accused Virender inflected knife blow in his abdomen as well as towards the left side of the hip. Resultantly, the injured-complainant 3 CRA No.361-SB of 2001 fell down while his brother Sanjiv Kumar tried to rescue him from the spot while raising raula. Accused Ramehar also kicked him and thereafter all of them fled away from the place of occurrence. 4. During the course of the investigation, the opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the injured was obtained and one of the injuries was declared as dangerous to life. Consequently, Section 307 IPC was also added. 5. On completion of the investigation and upon presentation of challan, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 6. The accused were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 324, 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, viz., Constable Inder Pal as PW1, SI Kishan Singh as PW2, ASI Rajinder Singh as PW3, Dr. Krishan Kumar as PW4, ASI Anil Kumar as PW5, Dr. (Mrs.) Manju Arora as PW6, Dr. Ranbir Singh Chaudhary as PW7, Constable Sujender Singh as PW8, Constable Mahesh Chander as PW9, Sanjiv Kumar as PW10, Anil Kumar, injured, as PW11, Dharmender as PW12, HC Ranbir Singh as PW13 and Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh as PW14. 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances and material evidence on record and pleaded false implication. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 4 CRA No.361-SB of 2001 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the material evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offence and term as indicated at the outset of this judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record a compromise dated 12.10.2010 reached between the parties which has been signed by Anil Kumar, injured (wrongly mentioned as complainant) and the accused-appellants, Ramehar @ Bittu and Umed @ Tinku. The compromise is witnessed by Ajmer Singh and Sanjay Kumar. Complainant-Suneel Kumar and injured-Anil Kumar, have appeared in person and have proved the compromise and made a statement that the compromise has been reached between the parties with the intervention of the elders and relations. They have further stated that they do not want to continue the litigation. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that Anil Kumar, injured witness, and his father, Bhagwan Sarup, have also admitted that they have received the compensation. 12. The FIR in the instant case was registered on 22.12.1997 and the parties have suffered protracted trial for more than 13 years. Accused-appellant, Virender Singh has undergone 01 year, 08 months and 27 days; Navin, Suneel and Ramehar have undergone 21 days each; and Umed has undergone 11 days of actual sentence. 13. Hon’ble the Apex Court, in Manoj and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 552, has observed as under:- “12. We have examined the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’] 5 CRA No.361-SB of 2001 which deals with compounding of offences. Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the offences punishable under the Sections of Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 320, offences punishable under the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means by the accused constitutes an offence under Section 324 IPC which can be compounded by person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the Court in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 13. It requires to be noticed that Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Act No.25/2005] amended Section 320 of the Code and in the Table under sub-Section (2) (a) the words “voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means” in column 1 and the entries relating thereto in columns 2 and 3 has been omitted. But the said amendment by Act No. 25 of 2005 has not yet been brought into force. Therefore, the offence under 324 is still compoundable with the permission of the Court.” 6 CRA No.361-SB of 2001 14. In the matters where parties have entered into a compromise, Larger Bench of this Court in 'Kulwinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another' reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has taken the following view:- "32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restrain. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savager." 15. It is in the larger interest of the society that hostility is reconciled and harmony is achieved. Therefore, no purpose would be achieved by sending the appellants to jail at this stage. 7 CRA No.361-SB of 2001 16. In view of that matter compounding the offence, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. 17. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of. 18. Since main appeals are disposed of, therefore, misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. December 07, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 8