RISHI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concisely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are that, initially in the wake of statement of complainant-Kanhiya Lal, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner-convict Rishi Pal and his other co-convicts, by means of FIR No.118 dated 12.10.2004, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 147 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Ding, District Sirsa.

(2.) Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner-convict and his other co-convicts, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC. Sequelly, they were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, to pay a fine of Rs.700/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 452/34 IPC, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction dated 01.03.2011 and order of sentence dated 03.03.2011.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby, the convicts filed the appeal to challenge their impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, good sense prevailed and the parties have amicably settled their disputes. They moved an application and sought the permission to compound the offence on the basis of compromise-deed dated 22.08.2012. The Appellate Court did not accept their prayer on the ground that the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of only seven days, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 12.09.2012.