Crl. Rev. No.1974 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1974 of 2002 Date of Decision: 21 - 4 - 2010 Budhu Ram and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitiones. Mr.J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. Mr.S.S.Siao, Advocate for the complainant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been preferred by Budhu Ram, Darshan Ram, Ram Lok and Malkiat Ram. They were named as accused in case FIR No.78 dated 7.12.1991 registered at Police Station Balachaur under Sections 323, 324/34 IPC. It is stated that lateron offence under Section 326 IPC was also added. The trial Court found the petitioners guilty of offence under Sections 326, 324, 323 and 34 IPC and sentenced them as under:- Petitioner-accused Ram Lok and Darshan Ram were sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Crl. Rev. No.1974 of 2002 [2] one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. Petitioners Budhu Ram and Malkiat Ram were sentenced under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. In case of default in payment of fine, the defaulting accused were ordered to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. Furthermore petitioner-accused Budhu Ram was sentenced under Section 324 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. Petitioners Darshan Ram, Malkiat Ram and Ram Lok were sentenced under Section 324 read with section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Lastly, petitioner Malkiat Ram was sentenced under Section 323 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. All the remaining petitioners Budhu Ram, Ram Lok and Darshan Ram were sentenced under Section 323 read with section 34 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, petitioners had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court having found no merit in the appeal dismissed the same while upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence. Hence, the present revision petition. The occurrence in the present case had taken place on 5.12.1991 at about 4.30 P.M. in the area of Village Tonsa. Petitioner Ram Lok armed with a Kulhari had caused grievous hurt to one Swaran Singh. Crl. Rev. No.1974 of 2002 [3] Petitioner Budhu Ram who was armed with a Kulhari had caused simple injuries to Swaran Singh. Petitioner Malkiat Singh who was armed with a dang had caused simple injuries to Swaran Singh. In the occurrence Swaran Singh complainant PW5, Kuldip Singh PW6, Surjit Singh PW8 and Sukhwinder Kaur PW9 were injured. It is stated that on the side of accused Budhu Ram and Suresh Kumar had suffered injuries and a cross case was registered against the complainant party. In the cross case initiated at the instance of accused, the complainant party had been acquitted. Mr.S.S.Siao, learned counsel appearing for the complainant had stated that during the pendency of the present revision petition, a compromise had been arrived at between the parties. It is stated that both the parties are residents of the same village. Vide Criminal Misc. No.3271 of 2010, Budhu Ram petitioner has placed on record compromise, Annexure A-1 and affidavits of Swaran Singh, Surjit Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur injured as Annexures P2 to P5 respectively. The same were taken on record. Further Mr.Siao has vouchsafed the factum of compromise. Counsel for both the parties state that due to intervention of the respectables, they had not only buried their feud but also brought to an end the bad blood between the parties. It is submitted that to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony in the village, the parties have settled the dispute amicably. Counsel for the State has submitted that all the petitioners have undergone 1 month and 15 days of sentence out of 1½ years sentence awarded under Section 326 IPC. 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 Crl. Rev. No.1974 of 2002 [4] 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. 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 petitioners behind the bars. Crl. Rev. No.1974 of 2002 [5] Hence, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to that of already undergone. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) April 21, 2010. JUDGE RC