RAM HANS @ HANS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.4.2003 and 5.4.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused have been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, setting off the period of detention from the sentence which they have already undergone during the enquiry, investigation and trial, if any. Along with the appeal, Criminal Misc. No. 49935 of 2003 is also being disposed of wherein plea set up is that a compromise between the convicts and the complainant has been arrived at in the presence of Mahan Panchayat where in the presence of witnesses, the convicts have agreed to maintain peace and tranquillity in future. The affidavits and the compromise dated 6.10.2003 and 13.10.2003 have been placed on record as Annexure P-1 to P-3.

(2.) THE prosecution version as disclosed in the order of Additional Sessions Judge is that complainant Subhash had a servant with the name of Ajay who was allegedly kidnapped by the convicts on 8.6.1995 when the complainant had gone away to purchase some household articles. On search, Ajay was found locked in the house of Mahesh accused. The cousin of complainant Chander who had located Ajay requested accused Mahesh to free Ajay. However, Mahesh refused and threatened to beat him. On the receipt of information, complainant Subhash along with his family member and others went to Kashipur and when the Panchayat was sitting in the house of Hargian in Village Kashipur, then accused Mahesh came with a Ballam in his hand and gave blow to Balraj on the upper portion of his left eye. When the complainant attempted to save his brother Balraj, then accused Mahesh gave Ballam blow to him. Ram Hans, Nathi and other two accused also gave lathi blow to Balraj and alleged to have threatened to kill complainant Subhash and his brother. On 14.6.1995 the matter was reported to Police Station Hassanpur and a case under Sections 324/325/34 IPC was registered against the accused. The accused were arrested and after completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was submitted. Complainant Subhash filed a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr.P.C.) and the accused were also summoned under Sections 307/363/342 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On the basis of overwhelming evidence against the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had established its case under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted the accused of the charge under Sections 342 and 363 IPC. All of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.

(3.) MR . S.S. Brar, learned State Counsel, has argued that there is no provision for compromising offences contemplated by the Cr.P.C. The learned State counsel has referred to Section 320 Cr.P.C. which furnishes a list of offences which may be compounded. The learned counsel has maintained that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not included in the aforesaid list. Therefore, it would be against the public policy to permit quashing of conviction and acquitting the convict-appellants.