NARESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Naresh alias Babloo son of Daya Nand has filed this appeal impugning judgment dated 04.09.2002 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which he was convicted under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. The appellant was also convicted under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant as well as the complainant Joginder Singh have compromised the matter and compromise-deed has been placed on record. Both the parties are present in Court. Joginder Singh has shown his identity card issued by the Election Commission of India which confirms his identity. The complainant has stated that he has entered into a compromise with the appellant and has no objection if the appellant is acquitted in this case. It is further averred in the compromise-deed Annexure A-1 that both the parties are neighbourers and now with the intervention of the respectables of the society, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and want to lead their lives in peace and harmony with mutual brotherhood.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is noncompoundable but in view of the judgment of this Court in case Sube Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2013 4 RCR(Cri) 102, the High Court has ample powers to compound the offences to secure the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant who had been convicted under the offences mentioned aforesaid.