Criminal Revision No.1088 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Criminal Revision No.1088 of 2005 Date of Decision 01.11.2010 Pala Singh and others ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent Criminal Revision No.1648 of 2005 Jagir Singh @ Jagira and others ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Hitesh Sood, Advocate, for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.1088 of 2005. Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.1648 of 2005. Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: This judgment shall dispose of aforesaid two revision petitions. The Revision Petition No.1088 of 2005 has been preferred by Pal Singh etc. petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated 03.05.2005, passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing their appeal against the judgment dated 20.07.2002, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran, vide which they were convicted and sentenced under Sections 323, 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The maximum sentence, awarded to them was one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. The second Revision Petition No.1648 of 2005 is against the Criminal Revision No.1088 of 2005 2 judgment dated 03.05.2005, passed by the first Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 20.07.2002, passed by the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the petitioners Jagir Singh etc. under Sections 326, 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Since the accused Kabul Singh had died on 17.05.2003, therefore, proceedings against him stand abated. It has been brought to my notice that accused Jagir Singh has undergone nine months, accused Kashmir Singh, Bira Singh, Jassa Singh and Kulwant Singh have undergone five months and 20 days of the substantive sentence whereas accused Pala Singh, Balkar Singh, Bakshish Singh and Salvinder Singh @ Khidhu have undergone 2½ months of the substantive sentence. It has been urged that the parties have compromised, therefore, some leniency may be shown on the quantum of sentence. On scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in the right perspective. There are concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused in both the cases returned by both the Courts below, therefore, the judgments of conviction, as recorded by the Courts below, are upheld. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence in this case took place on 06.05.1994; the sword of sentence remained hanging over their heads since then; the parties are the co- villagers and with the intervention of the villagers, a settlement has been arrived at vide compromise deed in both the petitions (Annexure A1) dated 16.10.2010. The complainant Jagir Singh and injured Bira Singh have filed their affidavits (Annexures A2 and A-3) in support of compromise. No doubt, the offence under Section 326 IPC in which the accused have been Criminal Revision No.1088 of 2005 3 convicted is non-compoundable. However, keeping in view the fact that the parties have amicably settled and they want to open new era of life, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, in view of the compromise deeds (Annexure A-1) placed on record and also the aforesaid circumstances of the case, both the revision petitions are dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 01.11.2010 mamta-II