Criminal Appeal No.323-SB of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.323-SB of 1993 Date of decision: 30.04.2008 Dilbag and others ..Appellants versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mrs.Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate, for the complainant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J(Oral) Vide detailed order passed in Criminal Misc.No.8858 of 2006, I have accepted and taken on record compromise (Annexure A-1) along with joint affidavit (Annexure A-2). Order passed in Criminal Misc.No.8858 of 2006 reads as under:- “Criminal Appeal No.323-SB of 1993 was filed by Dilbag @ Dilbag Singh, Thandi Ram, Chander Bhan, Wazir, Roshan, Ram Bilas, Prem, Baru, Satbir @ Satbir Singh and Manphool. They were convicted and sentenced by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, which is as under:- “Considering their statements and considering the nature of offence committed by them, and over all circumstances of the case. Dilbag accused is Criminal Appeal No.323-SB of 1993 2 sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo another imprisonment for three months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment under Sections 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for the commission of offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The remaining convicts, namely (1) Thandi, (2) Chander Bhan (4) Baru, (8) Satbir and (9) Manphool are hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each (or to undergo imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine—only for those who make default in payment of fine) for the commission an offence punishable under Sections 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Each one of them is further sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Each one of them is further sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for the commission of offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. All the three substantive sentences in respect of each one of the convicts named above are further ordered to run concurrently”. 13 accused were tried. Azad, Sube and Dhupa were acquitted in case FIR No.56 dated 03.03.1991 registered at Police Station, Meham under Sections 148/149/323/307 and 506 IPC. There was also a cross version in which 11 accused were tried on the statement of Thandi Ram. Both the parties i.e. complainant party and the accused who are appellants herein are the residents of the same village. Criminal Misc.No.8858 of 2006 was ordered to be heard along with the present appeal. Compromise(Annexure A-1) Criminal Appeal No.323-SB of 1993 3 has been placed on record. It is stated in the compromise that both the parties intend to maintain cordial relations, as prayed, the compromise arrived at between the parties, be accepted. To support the compromise, Dharma and Ramdei from the complainant party are present. From the accused-appellants side, Ram Bilas, Wazir, Chander Bhan, Satyabir, Dilbag, Prem, Azad and Thandi Ram are present. They have stated unanimously that the compromise has been arrived at and for the last 18 years, they are living peacefully. They have undertaken to maintain amity, harmony and cordial relations and everlasting peace and prayed that this compromise be accepted. Accordingly, Criminal Misc.No.8858 of 2006 is allowed and compromise (Annexure A-1) and the joint affidavit (Annexure A-2) already taken on record, are made part of Criminal Appeal No.323-SB of 1993. Mrs.Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate, for the appellants has stated that in order to give effect to compromise, this Court should segregate the case of Thandi Ram who is working as a Postman and not reduce his sentence to the period already undergone, but he be acquitted. As there is apprehension that Thandi Ram is likely to lose his job and when the occurrence took place, he was a student of B.A.IInd Year. I have no doubt in my mind that when the parties have compromised the matter and intend to live in peace, quarrel between the neighbours will not be construed a moral turpitude by the departmental authorities. The Court shall also strive on the larger principles to acknowledge the compromise arrived at between the parties so that bad blood and quarrel between the parties come to an end, to maintain peace, amity and harmony. Once the parties to the quarrel have buried their hatchet and the Court has appreciated this endeavour of the parties to promote everlasting peace, the employers of the Thandi Ram ought not to take his conviction as disqualification. Any loss of job to Thandi Ram will Criminal Appeal No.323-SB of 1993 4 again be a thorn in the compromise. Therefore, since Thandi Ram has told this Court that he has been discharging his duties efficiently, the very fact that his conviction and sentence is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone will not eclipse his service career. Having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties, the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, appeal is disposed off. April 30, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE