CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No.403-SB of 2000 Date of decision : 31.08.2010 Jagga Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab …Respondent AND CRA No.496-SB of 2000 Bhura Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN **** Present : Mr. C M Munjal, Advocate, for the appellants in CRA No.403-SB of 2000. Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate, for the appellants in CRA No.496-SB of 2000. Mr. J S Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1 CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 1. Two appeals, namely, CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000, shall be disposed of by this order as both the appeals relate to the same incident. However, the facts are being derived from CRA No.403-SB of 2000. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.4.2000 and the order of sentence of the same date (hereinafter as ‘impugned judgment’), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, (hereinafter as ‘trial Court’). The appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence to the following effect:- Name of the accused Offences Sentence Jeeta Singh u/s 326 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months Jeeta Singh u/s 324/149 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 3 months Jagga Singh Bhajna Singh Gurjit Singh Pritam Singh Partap Singh u/s 326/149 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months 2 CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 Jagga Singh Bhajna Singh Gurjit Singh Pritam Singh Partap Singh u/s 324 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 1 year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 3 months Pritam Singh Jagga Singh u/s 323 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months Jeeta Singh Bhajna Singh Gurjit Singh Partap Singh u/s 323/149 IPC To undergo RI for a period of 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of 2 months 3. All the accused persons further were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year each under Section 148 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, as recorded in para 2 of the impugned judgment, reads thus:- “2. The brief facts of the case as advanced by the prosecution are that on 24.4.1996, Jagna Singh son of Sher Singh resident of village Bhalaike, made a statement to the Police that they are three brother namely complainant himself as well as Bhura Singh and Bhajna Singh. The complainant is residing with Bhura Singh as he 3 CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 has got his land joint with him. On the date of occurrence at about 9 AM, the complainant and Bhura Singh as well as his nephews Jagsir Singh alias Tota Singh, Bhola Singh sons of Bhura Singh, had gone to their fields for its cultivation. The land was not fit for cultivation and hence, they were returning to their homes. Bhola Singh son of Bhura Singh was coming on the tractor behind them. When the complainant, his brother Bhura Singh and nephews Jagsir Singh alias Tota Singh reached near the village, they heard the noise of roula of Bhola Singh. The complainant and his brother Bhura Singh noticed that Jagga Singh son of Kartar Singh armed with Barsha, Jeet Singh son of Kartar Singh armed with a Gandhala, Bhajna Singh son of Sher Singh armed with a Gandhala, Gurjit Singh and Harjit singh sons of Bhajna Singh armed with Gandasas, Pritam Singh son of Jagga Singh armed with Gandasa, Partap Singh son of Ganga Ram Singh armed with Gandasa, were standing there. They had encircled Jagga Singh. On seeing this, the complainant, his brother Bhura Singh and nephew Jagsir Singh alias Tota Singh ran away towards Bhola Singh to rescue him. When they reached near Bhola Singh, Jeeta Singh gave a dasti Gandhala blow to Jagna Singh, which hit on his left arm 4 CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 and another blow on his right arm. Bhajna Singh also gave two gandhala blows to jagna Singh, which hit on the upper portion of his right leg. Gurjit Singh gave a gandasa blow which hit Jagna Singh on his forehead. He also gave another gandasa blow on his right arm. Jagna Singh fell down on the ground and Gurjit Singh gave another gandasa blow to him near his left ear. The complainant stated that Partap Singh also gave two gandasa blows to his nephew Jagsir Singh alias Tota Singh which hit on the right side of his head. He gave another gandasa blow to Jagsir Singh which hit on his left arm. Jagga Singh gave a Barsha blow to Bhura Singh, which hit on his right arm. Pritam Singh gave a Gandasa blow to Bhura Singh which hit on the right side of his head. Harjit Singh gave a gandasa blow to Bhura Singh which hit near his right ear. Bhura Singh fell down on the ground and Pritam Singh as well as Harjit Singh gave gandasa blows from its reverse side to Bhura Singh, which hit on upper portion of his right leg. Jagga Singh gave blows with the soti of the Barsha to Bhura Singh which hit on his right and left arms. An alarm was raised and Bhola Singh ran away from there after leaving the tractor on the 5 CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 spot. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot along with their weapons……” 5. FIR was registered and the injured were medico-legally examined. After investigation and on the basis of medical evidence, challan was filed under Sections 307/326/324/323/34 IPC. However, the accused were charged for the offences under Section 326/324/323/148/149 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses to prove its case, namely, Dr. R K Kaushal, Medical Officer, PW1; Jagna Singh son of Sher Singh (complainant) as PW2; Jagsir Singh son of Bhura Singh (injured) as PW3; Bhura Singh son of Sher Singh (injured) as PW4; ASI Gurdev Singh (Investigating Officer) as PW5; SI Amarjit Singh (who partly investigated the matter) as PW6; Surinder Pal son of Kundan Lal as PW7. 7. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while putting all the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, which they denied and in defence, the accused examined Major Singh, Ahlmad of the Court of learned JMIC, Mansa, as DW1. 8. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence and the term as indicated above at the outset in para 2 hereinabove. 6 CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has produced compromise having been effected between the parties on 12.01.2010 which is duly signed by both the parties and other respectable persons of the Village. According to the said compromise, it is stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties with the interference of the respectables of the village. Parties are of the same village and are known to each other and accused Bhajna Singh, Jeet Singh and Bhola Singh have since died. Now no grudge has been left between the parties. The parties are now living amicably in the society without any ill-will against each other and have resolved to live peacefully in the future. After compromise between the parties, there is no ill-will left and with the intervention of respectables, the compromise dated 12.01.2010 has been effected between the parties. The parties do not want to pursue the matter against each other. 10. Learned State counsel does not dispute the execution of compromise dated 12.1.2010 and has submitted that he has no objection if the appellants are acquitted on the basis of said compromise. 11. In the matters where parties have entered into a compromise, Larger Bench of this Court in 'Kulwinder Singh and others V. State of Punjab and another' reported as 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has taken the following view:- 7 CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 "32. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restrain. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savager." 12. Since the parties have resolved all the disputes and decided to live happily, therefore, no purpose would be served by proceeding further against the accused-appellants. 8 CRA No.403-SB of 2000 and CRA No.496-SB of 2000 13. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of in view of the compromise dated 12.01.2010 and the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. However, appeals qua Jeet Singh, Bhajna Singh, appellants No.2 and 3 (in CRA No.403-SB of 2000), and qua Bhola Singh, appellant No.3 (in CRA No.496-SB of 2000), stand abated. 14. Since main appeals are disposed of, therefore, misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 31.08.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes / No 9