DYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DYAL Singh and Baldev Singh petitioners along with four other accused, namely, Dula Singh, Sucha Singh, Ajit Singh, Kola alias Iqbal Singh were brought to trial for causing grievous and simple injuries to Baldev Singh, Karnail Singh, Harjit Singh and Gurdip Singh. P.Ws., before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, and having been held guilty under Sections 148, 326, 326/149, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323 and 323/149, Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine with the direction that the substantive sentences so awarded to them, shall run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar acquitted Dula Singh, Sucha Singh, Ajit Singh and Iqbal Singh of all the charges. The conviction and sentence of Dial Singh and Baldev Singh were upheld under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, but they were acquitted of the other offences. Feeling aggrieved, they have challenged their conviction and sentence by filing Crl. Revision No. 751/1981.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to advert to the facts at all because the learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded his inability to challenge their conviction. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to seek some concession on the point of sentence. It is alleged that the injured persons had compromised with the petitioners. The petitioners had also filed an application supported by the affidavits of the injured persons praying therein that the parties having compromised their dispute, they should be allowed to compound the offences but the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accede to their request on the ground that the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, was non -compoundable. As the parties are co -villagers and they have settled their dispute, in my opinion, it is not necessary to send the petitioners back to jail. The offence for which the petitioner have been convicted is no doubt non -compoundable but the fact of compromise can be taken into consideration in determining the quantum of sentence. It would, in my view, meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them provided they pay Rs. 300/ - each in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 months each. It is ordered accordingly. The fine if realized, whole of it shall be paid to the four injured witnesses in equal shares as compensation,

(3.) THE revision petitioner is accepted to the extent as indicated above.