CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 17, 2009 Parties Name Makhan Singh etc. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS State of Punjab ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate, for the appellants in this appeal and appellant in Cr. A. No. 433-DBA of 2001. Mr. D.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab, for the respondent in this appeal and respondent No. 1. in Cr. A. No. 995-SB of 2000, Cr. Rev. No. 1118 of 2001 and respondent No. 6 in Cr. A. No. 433-DBA of 2000 Mr. Raminderjit Singh, Advocate, for Mr. R.P.Dhir, Advocate, for the appellants in Cr. A. No. 995-SB of 2000 and petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1118 of 2001. JASBIR SINGH, J. JUDGMENT This order will dispose of (1)Criminal Appeal No. 995-SB of 2000 titled as 'Kulwaran Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another', (2) Criminal Appeal No. 1018-SB of 2000, titled as 'Makhan Singh etc. v. State of Punjab', (3) Criminal Appeal No. 433 -DBA of 2001 titled as ' CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -2- Joginder Singh v. Kulwaran Singh etc.' and (4) Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2001 titled as 'Bachan Ram v. State of Punjab and others' as all these cases have arisen out of one occurrence/ fight, which took place inter se the parties on November 12, 1993. To dictate orders, facts are being mentioned from Criminal Appeal No. 1018-SB of 2000. In this case/ occurrence, two factions / parties were involved. One party consisted of Makhan Singh, Balbir Singh, Joginder Singh, Sohan Singh, Nirmal Singh and Sital Singh. Vide impugned judgment dated October 11, 2000, on a complaint filed by Joginder Singh, named above, the members of second party, namely, Kulwaran Singh, Kundan Singh and Sadhu Ram were convicted. However,Lachhman Dass and Bachna Ram were acquitted. It was a case of free fight. In the first party, Joginder Singh was injured and in the second party, injuries were received by Bachna Ram, Lachhman Dass and Sadhu Ram. In trial, which commenced on the basis of FIR No. 71 dated November 13, 1993, first party Makhan Singh etc. were the accused. They were charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 148, 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Nirmal Singh and Sohan Singh were acquitted. However, others were convicted and following order of sentence was passed against them: “The accused Makhan Singh is convicted under section 326 IPC and the accused Balbir Singh, Joginder Singh and Sital Singh are convicted under section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing grievous injuries with sharp edged weapons to Bachna Ram and Lachhman Dass. The accused Balbir Singh and Joginder Singh are convicted under CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -3- section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Bachna Ram and Sadhu Ram and accused Makhan Singh and Sital Singh are convicted under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Sital Singh is convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Makhan Singh, Balbir Singh and Joginder Singh are convicted under section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple injuries to Sadhu Ram and Lachhman Dass. However, the prosecution have failed to prove the case against accused Sohan Singh and Nirmal Singh and, therefore, they are given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the offences charged.” Similarly, in a complaint, filed by Joginder Singh, second party headed by Kulwaran Singh was charge-sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 148, 307, 326 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide judgment dated October 11, 2000, impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 995- SB of 2000, Lachhman Dass and Bachna Ram were acquitted. However, Kulwaran Singh, Kundan Singh and Sadhu Ram were convicted. Following order of sentence was passed against them: “Convict Kulwaran Singh is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injury with sharp edged weapon to Joginder Singh and convict Kundan Singh and Sadhu Ram are sentenced to undergo RI for CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -4- a period of 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months under Section 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The convicts Kulwaran Singh, Kundan Singh and Sadhu Ram are also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year each under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code for causing simple injuries to Joginder Singh, complainant. Both the substantive sentences are to run concurrently.” Against acquittal of Lachhman Dass and Bachna Ram and also for enhancement of punishment qua Kulwaran Singh, Kundan Singh and Sadhu Ram, Joginder Singh of first party has filed Criminal Appeal No. 433-DBA of 2001. Similarly, assailing acquittal of Nirmal Singh and Sohan Singh, Bachna Ram, injured of the second party, has filed Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2001. Enhancement of punishment to other accused has also been prayed. At the time of arguments, counsel for the parties are in agreement that being co-villagers, better sense has prevailed. The Gram Panchayat and respectables of the village have intervened and both the parties have entered into a compromise, which was reduced into writing on February 3, 2009, the same has been signed by members of both the parties, named in earlier part of this order. Criminal Misc. No. 8351 of 2009 has been filed to place on record above said document. Original has been taken on record as Ex. A1 in Court. It has also been brought to our notice that members of the first party headed by Makhan Singh have undergone about three months of actual sentence. Similarly, members of the second party CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -5- headed by Kulwaran Singh have undergone about 1 – ½ month of actual sentence. All the convicts are first offenders. By stating as above, counsel for the parties have prayed that let the convicts and others live in peace and their sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by them. To say so, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 477. We have heard counsel for the parties. In Nirmal Singh's case (supra), while dealing with a similar situation, a Single Bench of this Court observed as under: “6. Purpose of criminal law justice is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform oneself. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000(3) RCR (Crl.) 561 (SC): 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 had opined that in appropriate cases, reformative approach is required to be adopted. 8. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 9. Similar is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Cri.) 600. In that case in an appeal against acquittal, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -6- accused were convicted. However, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. 10.To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) Rcr (Cri.) 467. 11.Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Billiya v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(10) Supreme Court Cases 486, wherein, in a case under Section 304 Part II IPC, leniency was shown to the accused in that case and they were ordered to be released on probation. 12.To support his contention, counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577, wherein after convicting the appellant – accused therein for commission of an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in para No. 12 as under: “”12. Even so on the facts and in the circumstances of this case we do not feel persuaded to let off the appellant with an imposition of fine only. We, however, thought that sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. We were informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellant's wife was also filed before us to the effect that the appellant was in jail for about nine months as an undertrial prisoner and for about four months CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -7- after conviction. Thus he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. The occurrence took place more than a decade ago. The appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years' further imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the appellant not under Part I of Section 304 of the Penal Code but under part II.” 13. Similarly, their Lordships of Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) RCR (Cri.) 45(SC): AIR 1987 (SC) 806, where petitioner in that case was charge- sheeted for commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act upholding his conviction have opined as under: “Learned counsel ultimately contended that this appellant a Patwari who had faced the trial and pendency of this appeal for about 14 years will now have to go to jail for serving out a part of this sentence which remained to be served. It is no doubt true that having been convicted for these offences the appellant is bound to lose his service. It was also stated that he had served out some sentence of the imprisonment also. The incident is of 1972 and we are now in 1987. In view of these circumstances in our opinion the sentence of the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -8- imprisonment already undergone and sentence of fine imposed by Hon'ble the Trial Court will meet the ends of justice. Consequently appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, his sentence as regards sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone but the sentence of fine is maintained. He is on bail. His bail bond shall be cancelled; if he had not paid the amount of fine shall do so within one month from today.” It is apparent from the record that the complainants and the injured are co-villagers. Occurrence had taken place in the year 1993. Trial was disposed of by the Court below in the year 2000. Since then, these four cases are pending in this Court. It has also been brought to our notice that the appellants and the other accused named in these cases are the only bread winners for their families and if at this stage, they are sent behind the bars, their families would also suffer. It appears that better sense has prevailed. The parties have compromised, which fact is apparent from document taken on record as Ex. A1. By now both the parties might have forgotten the bad incident, which had occurred in the year 1993. Some of them have also remained in jail for few months. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of these cases, conviction of the appellants in this appeal and also in Criminal Appeal No. 1018-SB of 2001 is upheld. However, their sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by them. Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2001 and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018-SB OF 2000 -9- Criminal Appeal No. 433-DBA of 2001, are dismissed as withdrawn as prayed. All the four matters stand disposed of as mentioned above. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) JUDGE February 17, 2009. DKC