Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2346 of 2002 Date of Decision:18.01.2010 Randhir Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Argued By:Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Dev Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(Oral) Having lost the legal battle in the courts below, convict- petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioners”) have directed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.03.1998 and order of sentence dated 11.03.1998 vide which they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and six months, to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC each; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC each; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -2- further rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An amount of Rs.10,000/- realized from the accused as fine was ordered to be paid to the injured-complainant. 2. The crux of the prosecution case unfolded during the trial, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that on 07.09.1988, at about 04.30 P.M., complainant-Ranjit Singh-PW5 was going back to his village Budha on his bicycle from Ladwa town. On the way, PWs Baldev Singh, Sahab Singh and Jagir Singh met him. As soon as, they reached near the village pond, in the meantime, petitioner-Randhir Singh armed with a 'lathi' reached there. He gave a 'lathi' blow which hit on the back side of PW5-complainant Ranjit Singh. Thereafter, main accused-Raghbir Singh(since deceased) and Karnail Singh armed with 'gandasi' and accused-Bhim Singh @ Bheema armed with a 'lathi' who were hiding themselves behind the bushes, also appeared there. Accused Raghbir Singh raised a 'lalkara' that he(complainant) be taught a lesson for helping Ishwar Singh who was having some litigation with them, whereupon, Raghbir Singh gave a 'gandasi' blow which hit on the finger of right hand of PW5-complainant Ranjit Singh. Petitioner- Karnail Singh was stated to have given a 'gandasi' blow on his left leg while petitioner-Bhim Singh gave two/three 'lathi' blows on the right leg. PW5- complainant had fallen on the ground. Thereafter, Raghbir/Ranjit Singh and Bhim Singh @ Bheema inflicted several injuries on his person. PWs Gurnam Singh, Baldev Singh and Jagir Singh rescued him from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter, all the accused decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations in all, according to the prosecution that on 07.09.1988, main accused Raghbir Singh caused two grievous injuries on the finger of right hand of PW5-complainant while the Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -3- remaining accused inflicted injuries to him with their respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement recorded by SI-Sohan Singh, which formed the basis of FIR, the present case was registered against the petitioners and deceased-accused on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Ladwa in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court charge-sheeted the main accused-Raghbir Singh(since deceased) and the petitioners for the commission of offence as described above. As the petitioners did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 5. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. 6. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioners in the manner indicated here-in-above. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 25.11.2002, except in the reduction of sentence, which is as under:- “The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -4- imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently”. 8. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence and filed the present revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter. 9. At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of this petition, only injured-PW5 complainant Ranjit Singh entered into a compromise with the petitioners at the intervention of relatives and 'biradri panchayat'. In the wake of Criminal Misc. No.2087 of 2010, they have produced on record a copy of the compromise deed dated 20.12.2009, which is in the following manner:- “Today on dated 20th December 2009, a Panchayat of the respectables of the village and the relatives of the parties has been convened in which the above said litigation was considered. The present respectables made to understand to both the parties to compromise the matter in the above mentioned case and they also made to understand about its profits-losses. By understanding the social brotherhood, the Panchayat made to understand to both the parties for compromise. Both the parties agreed to compromise the matter in presence of the present respectables. Both the parties will be bound for completing all the formalities for decision. If the need occurs to go to the Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -5- court then Sh.Ranjit Singh will be bound to appear in the court for this compromise. So by accepting the asking of the Panchayat, Sh.Ranjit Singh has compromised the case with the second party. So it is requested to the Hon'ble Court that by accepting our this compromise, the case be consigned to the record room”. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not challenge the impugned judgment of conviction on merits but urged that the main accused-Raghbir Singh son of Ajmer Singh by whom grievous injuries were caused by means of 'gandasi' to complainant-Ranjit Singh(PW5) had already died and all the injuries attributed to the present petitioners are simple in nature. The submission is that the parties have compromised the matter and although, the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable but while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties can be taken into consideration. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwar Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 1. 11. Learned State Counsel neither disputed the factum of the compromise nor the observations made in Ishwar Singh's case(supra). Moreover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has admitted the factum of the compromise between the parties and prayed for their acquittal. 12. Meaning thereby, since, the petitioners did not challenge the impugned judgments of conviction but prayed for some leniency in awarding substantive sentence in view of the law laid down in Ishwar Singh's case(supra), so, the conviction of the petitioners is hereby maintained. It was, therefore, jointly prayed on behalf of the parties that Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -6- the petitioners be released by treating the sentence already undergone by them is sufficient. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwar Singh's case(supra)while relying upon Jetha Ram Versus State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan and others Versus Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504, Ishwarlal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, JT 1988(3) SC 366(1) and Mahesh Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 332, held that the factum and effect of the compromise can be taken into consideration while imposing substantive sentence and is a relevant circumstance which the court may keep in mind. 14. It is also not a matter of dispute that main accused-Raghbir Singh son of Ajmer Singh, who voluntarily caused grievous injuries to PW5, had already died. Petitioner-Randhir Singh was aged 24 years whereas petitioners-Bhim Singh @ Bheema and Karnail were aged 22 and 24 years respectively at the time of occurrence. The injuries attributed to the petitioners are simple in nature and that too on non-vital parts. They have already undergone more than two and a half months, a considerable period of their sentence. They have already suffered the agony of protracted trial for the last more than twenty one years. The parties belong to the same village. They have compromised the matter. So taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra) and the totality of the facts and circumstances emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to my mind, it would be expedient and interest of justice would be sub-served if the petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -7- dismissed. The impugned judgments of conviction are hereby maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them, whereby, sentence of fine is maintained. January 18, 2010 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar) seema Judge Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -8- Crl. Revision No. 2346 of 2002 -9-