TEJBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present appeal, the accused appellants have assailed the judgment of Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and in case default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo RI for three months. They were further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months for committing an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, compromise dated 2.05.2003 annexed as Annexure A-1 and also exhibited as A-1 was arrived between the parties. In occurrence, two persons Om Pal and his maternal uncle Babu Ram were injured. They have placed on record Affidavits Annexures A-2 and A-3. The same are exhibited by this Court as Ex.PA-2 and Ex.PA-3. Statement of injured Babu Ram and Om Pal and accused Tejbir, Jagbir and Dalbir have been recorded separately. The same may be read as part of this judgment.

(3.) Sh. Arvind Singh, Advocate appearing for the appellants has stated that he will not assail the conviction but pray to this Court that taking compromise into consideration, sentence of the accused be reduced to the period already undergone. He has relied upon Ram Pujan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1973 2 SCC 456 and Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr. v. State of Orissa,1992 2 AllCriLR 415 to contend that it has been consistently held by the Courts that the hour of the compromise between the parties is the finest hour. It is further submitted that if the appellants are sent behind the bars it may disturb the prevailing peace.