IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 729-SB of 2002(O&M) Date of Decision: December 8, 2010. Gurpreet Singh and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus State of Punjab ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Lalli, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2002 passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot in FIR No.48 dated 30.09.1995, under Sections 307/323/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, vide which appellant No.1 –Gurpreet Singh was convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment CRA No.729-SB of 2002 for five years and to pay fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months. Appellant No.2 –Gurdeep Singh was convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and he was also convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the whole record. Brief facts of the case are that, on 29.09.1995 at about 5.00 pm Karnail Singh –complainant alongwith Baba Jarnail Dass and many other persons of village Sivian were grazing cows in the land meant for cattle grazing in the village. When in the meantime, persons belonging to Sodhi community, who were opposing grazing on the said land came there. 6/7 amongst them were armed with sticks and guns. They fired 3/4 shots and one 2 CRA No.729-SB of 2002 of the fire shot hit upper arm of the complainant and also hit Sant Jarnail Dass. Complainant had also received injuries with Dangs. In the meantime, Sant Ramji Lal alongwith some other persons reached there and due to their intervention complainant-Jarnail Dass was rescued from those persons. The motive behind the occurrence was that the complainant and others grazed the cows in the land meant for the purpose and the accused party used to oppose them. After completion of investigation, prosecution filed cancellation report and however, as complainant did not agree with the cancellation report, learned Magistrate summoned the accused to face trial. Complainant, Jarnail Dass also filed criminal complaint against the appellants for offence under Sections 307/323/148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act. The present appellants alongwith co-accused were summoned to face trial for offence under Section 307/323/148/149 IPC and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. However, co-accused Arvinder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Guranditta Singh were acquitted. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that they do not want to pursue their appeal against judgment of conviction and hence, the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court against the appellants may be upheld. Perusal of file shows that, the impugned judgment of conviction is based on eye-witness account, which is duly corroborated by medical evidence as well as other circumstantial evidence. 3 CRA No.729-SB of 2002 I have gone through the said evidence. There is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the findings recorded by learned trial Court as the same is based on legally admissible evidence, which inspire confidence of the Court. Hence, the judgment of conviction of present appellants as aforementioned passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot is, hereby, affirmed. However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the complainant that the parties belong to same village and that they have amicably settled the dispute during the pendency of this appeal. Learned counsel for the complainant-injured has also placed on record affidavits of complainant –Karnail Singh and another injured Sant Jarnail Dass and compromise entered into the parties. Learned counsel for the State has been directed to get the same verified and he has placed on record report stating that the matter has since been settled between the parties. Hence, neither the complainant-injured nor learned counsel for the State is having any objection if a lenient view is taken in the matter of sentence in view of the fact that compromise has been effected between the parties. Appellants have undergone about three months of the sentence after conviction as they remained on bail during trial and thereafter, they were admitted to bail by this Court. Hence, in view of the fact that dispute between the parties has been settled, no purpose would be served by sending the appellants in custody. Moreover, they are not previous convicts and they are facing agony of trial since the year 1995 i.e. for the last about 15 years. 4 CRA No.729-SB of 2002 Hence, in view of these facts, the order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellants are ordered to undergo imprisonment already undergone by them during investigation, trial and during pendency of this appeal. However, so far as quantum of fine is concerned, the same is enhanced. Appellants are directed to pay `25,000/- each as fine, which shall be paid to complainant-injured and another injured, Sant Jarnail Dass in equal share as compensation. The said amount shall be deposited with learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot within one month from today failing which the present appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed and the sentence awarded by learned trial Court shall stand restored. The present appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 8, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 5