1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1927 of 2009O&M) Date of Decision: 9.9.2009 *** Bhajan Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the complainant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Criminal Misc. applications are allowed. Compromise and affidavit of complainant are taken on record. The hearing of the case is pre-poned to today itself and taken on board for hearing. The petitioners were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. On conclusion of trial, the charges against the petitioners were found proved by the learned trial court for having assaulted Jagjit Singh and further criminally intimidated him. For an offence under Section 323 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default rigorous imprisonment for 15 days; under Section 324 IPC rigorous imprisonment for six months was awarded with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default thereof further rigorous imprisonment for one month; for committing offence under Section 325 IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- each was awarded, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for two months; the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous 2 imprisonment for two years under section 326 IPC besides fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default thereof further rigorous imprisonment for three months was awarded and for an offence under Section 506 IPC they were awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were to run concurrently. On an appeal preferred against the judgment of the trial Court, their conviction was maintained but sentence under Section 325 and 326 IPC was reduced to 9 months and 12 months respectively. Dis-satisfied with the same, the petitioners have preferred the instant revision petition. On July 29,2009 when this revision came up for hearing, it was admitted in respect of quantum of sentence alone. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that during the pendency of the instant revision petition, the parties have entered into a settlement with Jagjit Singh-complainant. It has also been contended that the parties belong to same village and the compromise is in interest of both the parties. Compromise (Annexure P-4) and affidavit of complainant (Annexure P-5) have also been placed on record wherein also the factum of the parties having entered into a compromise has been reiterated. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have undergone about two months' custody in relation to the present incident and in view of the compromise having arrived at between the parties, their further sentence be reduced. The arguments have been scanned. The complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioners and they have decided to live in peace. A settlement, which emerges out from the hearts of the individual will be most lasting as compared to one which will be enforced by penal provision of law. In the case in hand, an attempt has also been made by the parties to rehabilitate in life, which this Court feels is required to be appreciated. However, some of the offences for which the petitioners are facing prosecution are non-compoundable. In the cases of Hasi Mohan Barman & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 70 and Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the parties are compounding the offence, which was not compoundable the 3 findings of acquittal cannot be recorded in favour of the accused and the permission to compound could not be ordered by ignoring the statutory provision, but the factum of compromise could be taken into consideration for reducing the sentence. The incident pertains to the year 1999. The petitioners have already undergone the agony of protracted trial as well as appeal for more than 10 years. Therefore, in view of the settlement having arrived at between both the parties, the order of conviction of the petitioners is upheld. However, the sentences awarded to them, as mentioned above, is reduced to the one already undergone by them. With the above modification, the instant revision petition stands disposed of. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 9,2009 Jiten