IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 1988-SB of 2002 Date of decision: 23rd April, 2010 Gurdial Singh and another … Appellants Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) For causing injuries to Lakhwinder Singh etc., in a private complaint case under Section 326/324/323/34 IPC, the appellants Gurdial Singh, Sucha Singh were tried along with their co-accused Beant Singh and Ram Singh by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar. The trial Court acquitted Sucha Singh and Beant Singh, however, convicted appellant Gurdial Singh under Section 324 IPC and appellant Ram Singh with an aid of Section 34 IPC. Both of the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half year. Lakhwinder Singh and Davinder Singh two brothers along with Satnam Singh brother-in-law of Lakhwinder Singh had caused injuries to their brother Gurdial Singh and his brother-in-law Ram Singh. A case FIR No.162 dated 5th September, 1996 was registered at Police Station Lopoke under Sections 307/326/324/323/34 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, which acquitted Criminal Appeal No.1988-SB of 2002 them for offence under Section 307 IPC, however, found them guilty of offence punishable under Section 324/326/34 IPC. Satnam Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 326 IPC. Lakhwinder Singh and Davinder Singh were awarded the similar sentence with an aid of Section 34 IPC. Davinder Singh was further sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. During the pendency of the present appeal, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, which has been placed on record in connected case bearing Criminal Appeal No.2020-SB of 2002 as Annexure P-3/T. Separate statements of Lakhwinder Singh and Davinder Singh have been recorded today in Court. They be read as part of this judgment. Both Lakhwinder Singh and Davinder Singh have stood by the compromise. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the parties are closely related and after the compromise has been arrived at, they are living in complete peace and in case the appellants are sent behind the bars at this stage, no useful purpose will be served. Therefore, the accused be dealt with leniently. This Court, in ‘Chiranji Lal and Others v. State of Haryana’ (Criminal Appeal No. 872-SB of 1997 decided on 18.1.2010), relying upon the judgments rendered in ‘Ram Pujan v. State of Uttar Pradesh’ 1973 (2) Supreme Court Cases 456 and ‘Surendra Nath Mohanty and Another v. State of Orissa’ 1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 415, had reduced the sentence of the appellants therein to that of already undergone. 2 Criminal Appeal No.1988-SB of 2002 In ‘Dharam Paul and Others v. State of Punjab’ (Criminal Appeal No. 732-SB of 1999, decided on 3.2.2010), this Court relied upon the judgment rendered in ‘Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh’ 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case under Section 307 IPC, had reduced the sentence to already undergone taking the factum of compromise as a mitigating circumstance. In Ishwar Singh's case (supra), it was observed as under:- “14. In ‘Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan’, (2006) 9 SCC 255, ‘Murugesan & Ors. v. Gaanapathy Velar’, (2001)10 SCC 504 and ‘Ishwarlal v. State of M.P.’, JT 1988(3) SC 366(1), this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in ‘Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan’, 1990(3) RCR (Crl.) 332 : AIR 1988 SC 2111, such offence was ordered to be compounded”. In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, which have been noticed above and the case law relied, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellants behind the bars. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to that of already undergone. With the observations made above, the present criminal appeal is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 23, 2010 rps 3