JAGJIT SINGH S Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Jagjit Singh and Mohinder Singh were brought to trial before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, under Sections 326/324/323/34, Indian Penal Code and having been found guilty thereof, Jagjit singh was substantively convicted under Section 326 Indian Penal Code and Mohinder Singh under Sections 326/34, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. They were also convicted under the ancillary offence under Sections 323/34 and 323, Indian Penal Code, respectively, and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment each with the direction that the substantive sentences so awarded to them shall run concurrently. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, after elaborately appraising the evidence upheld the convictions of the petitioners but the sentence of imprisonment awarded under Sections 326 and 326/34, Indian Penal Code, was reduced from two years to one year's rigorous imprisonment each while maintaining the sentence of fine and the sentence awarded to them under Sections 3234 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved, they have not come up by way of revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to singularly challenge the petitioner 's convictions on merits. The only prayer made has been for reduction in the sentence on the ground that the parties have compromised the dispute with each another. An application (Cri. Misc. No. 2269 of 1983) for permission to compound the offences had been made and an affidavit of Brahm Sarup Singh injured has also been placed on the record. It has been averred in the affidavit that the respectables have got effected the compromise between the injured and the petitioner s so that they may live peacefully and amicably in the town. As the parties belong to the same town and have settled their dispute, in my opinion, it is not necessary to keep the petitioner in jail. The major offence for which the petitioners have been convicted is no doubt non -compoundable but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the question of sentence. It would, in my opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, under all the counts, are reduced to the period already undergone by them, provided each of the petitioner pays a fine of Rs. 500/ - in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court under the major offence and it is ordered accordingly. In default of the payment of fine, each of the petitioners shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine, if realized, whole of it shall be paid to Brahm Sarup Singh as compensation.

(3.) BOTH the revision Petition, and the Criminal miscellaneous application are disposed of accordingly.