LAKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAKHA Singh, his three brothers Bakhshish Singh, Pala Singh, Jaila Singh, Bira Singh son of Joginder Singh and his brother Darshan Singh were tried for offences under Sections 148, 326, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC for causing injuries to Bhagwan Singh, Sharan Kaur and Gurbaj Singh by Shri S. S. Kanwal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda. Vide judgment dated 12-2-86, except Darshan Singh, the others were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for different periods under different counts and were also fined. The accused preferred an appeal against the judgment recording their conviction which was partly accepted and Bira Singh and Bakhshish Singh were acquitted while the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the other accused was reduced. Lakha Singh, Pala Singh and Jaila Singh whose conviction was maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 20-5-1986.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal the injured effected compromise with the petitioners and compromise-deed alongwith affidavits of Bhagwan Singh. Sharan Kaur and Gurbaj Singh were placed on record. In the affidavits it was alleged that the parties were close relatives. Bhagwan Singh injured who had received grievous injury was the real uncle of the petitioners. On the intervention of respectables compromise had been effected so as to improve the relations between the parties. There was a cross case against Gurbaj Singh and Amrik Singh for causing injuries to Lakha Singh petitioner which resulted in acquittal.

(3.) BEFORE me the conviction of the petitioners was not assailed and the only prayer made on behalf of the petitioners was for reduction of the sentence on the ground that the parties had effected compromise. The occurrence took place in the year 1983 and the petitioners had already undergone sufficient harassment and mental agony. The petitioners had remained in jail for 40 days and the relations between the parties will improve in case the petitioners were not sent to jail to undergo the remaining term of imprisonment. I find that this contention of the learned counsel is valid and although the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be taken into consideration in order to determine the question of sentence. Considering the circumstances of the case, the relationship between the parties and the fact, that the parties have agreed to bury the hatchet, I feel, that it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners under all the counts is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The sentence of imprisonment is thus, reduced to the period already undergone but the sentence of fine is maintained.