Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) -1- ...... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000 Date of decision: 06.12.2010 Tek Chand and others ........Appellants Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: - Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Ahuja, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the complainant. ...... JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) A challenge has been made to the judgment dated 04.09.2000 (for short referred as 'impugned judgment) delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa (for short as the 'Trial Court) in F.I.R. No.20 of 20.01.1996 registered at Police Station Kalanwali under Sections 307, 325, 324, 323, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short as 'IPC') whereby the appellants have been convicted as under: - Name of the accused Offence under Section(s) Imprisonment awarded and fine RI in default of payment of fine Bhola Singh 325 IPC 324/34 IPC 323/34 IPC RI for 1 year with a fine of ` 500/- RI for 6 months RI for 3 months 2 months --- --- Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) -2- ...... Name of the accused Offence under Section(s) Imprisonment awarded and fine RI in default of payment of fine Jagtar Singh 324 IPC 325/34 IPC 323/34 IPC RI for 6 months RI for 1 year with a fine of ` 500/- RI for 3 months --- 2 months --- Jagga Singh 324 IPC 325/34 IPC 323/34 IPC RI for 6 months RI for 1 year with a fine of ` 500/- RI for 3 months --- 2 months --- Tek Singh 324/34 IPC 325/34 IPC 232/34 IPC RI for 6 months RI for 1 year with a fine of ` 500/- RI for 3 months --- 2 months --- All the substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. In nut-shell the facts of the case, as set up in the prosecution case, are that on 29.01.1996 Rajwant Singh-complainant and his uncle Jagdish were irrigating their fields from their tubewell through the sanctioned water-course. At about 9.30 AM, Jagtar Singh armed with a kassi (Spade), Jagga Singh armed with Kasoli (a spade like weapon with a long handle), Tek Singh and Bhola Singh armed with Lathis (Bamboo stick) and Banta Singh armed with a double barrel gun came there one-by-one from the side of village Chormar. Banta Singh while raising the Lalkara instigated his co-accused to kill the complainant and Jagdish for taking water from the sanctioned water-course. Accordingly, Jagtar Singh inflicted a Kassi blow on the left side of head of Jagdish. Jagga Singh inflicted a Kasoli blow on the left side of the head of Jagdish. Tek Singh dealt a lathi blow on the right thigh and Bhola Singh dealt a lathi blow on the left arm of Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) -3- ...... Jagdish. When Rajwant Singh-complainant tried to rescue his uncle Jagdish, Sukhdev Singh accused also came there armed with a lathi and he inflicted two lathi blows on the person of the complainant which landed on his neck and back. The alarm raised by the injured attracted Harnek Singh father of the complainant and Harmail Singh- uncle who also witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot on seeing the witnesses running towards the spot. While fleeing, the accused threatened the injured to kill him in future. The motive according to the prosecution was that the accused wanted to irrigate their land by taking water from it because the complainant and his uncle were irrigating their fields from the same water-course. The injured were removed to the Civil Hospital, Sirsa where they were medico legally examined. 3. On the basis of this statement, formal F.I.R. (Exhibit PM/2) was registered. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented. Accordingly, charge under Sections 148, 323/149 and 506/149 IPC was framed against all the accused. Jagtar Singh was charged under Section 307 IPC whereas remaining accused were charged under Section 307/149 IPC. Jagga Singh was charged under Section 324 IPC whereas remaining accused were charged under Section 324/149 IPC and Bhola Singh was charged under Section 325 IPC and the remaining accused were charged under Section 325/149 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution to substantiate the charges against the accused, examined ten witnesses. The accused were examined Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) -4- ...... under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While putting to them all the incriminating material coming on record in the prosecution evidence against them which they denied and pleaded there being not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. The accused examined as many as three witnesses. Upon appreciation of the evidence placed on record by both the parties, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as detailed mentioned in the outset of this judgment. 5. Aggrieved from the conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court seeking setting aside the same. 6. The present appeal was admitted vide order dated 28.09.2000 and their sentence was also suspended during the pendency of the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed in Court affidavit(s) of Rajwant Singh S/o Harnek Singh (one of the injured) and Jagdish Singh S/o Atma Singh. 8. From the contents of the compromise, it is evident that both the parties have compromised the matter and do not want to persuade it further. They are residents of the same village and residing in neighbourhood. The appellants were acquitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Offence under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants made a reference to Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the cases concerning compounding of offences. Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) -5- ...... “320.Compounding of offences.- (1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 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:- xxx xxx xxx xxx (8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon reported case titled Hirabhai Jhaverbhai vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported as 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 824, vide which the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal in the following terms: - “ xxx xxx xxx 4. From the record it is evident that the incident in question took place on July 23, 1986. Pursuant to the order dated January 29, 2010 passed by this Court in the instant matter, the complainant and injured are impleaded as respondents and are represented through their learned counsel. They have filed affidavit stating that the disputes between the parties have been settled with the intervention of respectable persons of the society. They have also expressed their willingness to compound the offence. This Court finds that after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 from June 23, 2006 the offence u/s 324 IPC is made non- Criminal Appeal No.904-SB of 2000(O&M) -6- ...... compoundable. However, in this case offence u/s 324 IPC was committed on July 23, 1986 on which date it was compoundable with the permission of the Court. As the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005 is not applicable to the facts of the case, offence u/s 324 IPC would be compoundable with the permission of the Court. In view of the statement, made by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in their affidavit and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, permission to compound the offence deserved to be granted to the original complainant and the injured. 5. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The two judgments impugned in the appeal are set aside. The injured complainant and two other injured are permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. In view of sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the composition of offence u/s 324 IPC shall have the effect of an acquittal of the appellant with whom the offence has been compounded.” 11. In view of above compromise and affidavit shown by the complainant in its support, the present appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE December 6th, 2010 neetu