HARPAL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against their conviction in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 1978 of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur dated 1 1.8,1979 whereby all the appellants were convicted under Sections 148 Indian Penal Code and 324/149 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts in brief were that on 27.2.1978 at about 4.(X) p.m., PW 2 Surendra Singh was working at his Kolhoo. All the appellants came there. The appellant Roopu Singh had a Tamancha while the remaining appellants were armed with guns. The appellants assaulted and opened fire on Surendra Singh saying that he should be murdered. On alarm being raised Dalip Singh, PW 3 and Bachan Singh, PW 4 went to the rescue of Surendra Singh, PW2 and then the appellants made good their escape. The first information was lodged by Surendra Singh and the usual investigation ensued. The appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions and the prosecution examined Dr. R.D. Gulati, PW 1, Surendra Singh, PW 2, Dalip Singh, PW 3, Bachan Singh, PW 4, Sub-Inspector Jamal Ahmad, PW 5 out of which Dr. R.P. Gulati and Sub-Inspector Jamal Ahmad were formal witnesses and the rest were the witnesses of fact. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence on record came to they conclusion that the appellants had committed the crime and they were guilty of offences under Sections 148 Indian Penal Code and 324/149 PC. The appellants were, therefore, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

(3.) During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the findings of the trial court regarding the conviction of the appellants. However, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that it compromise has been entered into between the parties which has been filed in this Court and which has been sent for verification and the same has been verified on 12.10.1982 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahjahanpur. It has, therefore, been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the fact that there has been a compromise between the parties and the injured person has been suitably compensated and because although the offence under Sec. 324 Indian Penal Code is compoundable and the offence under Sec. 148 Penal Code is not compoundable the conviction may be maintained but the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone.