ARJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed the application (Crl. Misc. No. 61851 of 2006) for permission to compound offences under Sections 325/324/323/149 and 148 IPC. Offences other than under Section 148 IPC are compoundable with the permission of the Court. However, it is to be seen as to whether any offence under Section 148 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(2.) AS per the prosecution, Arjan Singh appellant was armed with a toki at the time of the occurrence whereas Surjit Singh, Bikramjit Singh, Hardip Singh and Lakhwinder Singh appellants were carrying a soti each while Sarabjit Singh and Sukhchain Singh appellants were empty handed. Toki, in common parlance, is not a weapon. It is a house-hold implement kept by agriculturists and used for cutting wood. In any case, it cannot be considered to be a deadly weapon. Same is the position with soti, better known as stick. With the type of arms carried by the accused, as per the prosecution, it could not be said that they were armed with any deadly weapon. Once this Court arrives at such a conclusion it would be difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 148 IPC. Mere fact that the accused were more than five in number was no ground to charge them in routine under Section 148 IPC and convict them for the said offence. Apart from this, Section 149 IPC does not create any substantive offence. It makes other persons liable for the act of one if the same is done in furtherance of common object of the unlawful assembly. It is an analogy of law so as to enable the Court to convict all the members of the unlawful assembly. At the same time, no court can convict any accused only under Section 149 IPC. The conviction has to be for the substantive offence qua the accused, who inflicted the injury in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly and regarding the others, the Court is required to convict them with the aid of Section 149 IPC, as if the others were also the part of the same very unlawful assembly.

(3.) THE appellants have also prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Along with the aforementioned application, a compromise (Annexure A- 1), entered into between the parties on 2.6.2006, has been placed on the record. It is stated therein that the incident in question had taken place during the parliamentary elections in which Balwant Singh and Baljit Singh received injuries. However, at the intervention of the respectables of the village and the area, a meeting was called in the village where both the parties promised to live peacefully in the village. Both the parties participated in the meeting after the compromise and went to the village Gurdwara where they performed Ardas for long lasting peace in the village. This compromise-deed was signed by both the injured, namely, Balwant Singh and Baljit Singh, besides all the seven appellants. The same was witnessed by Chairman of Sugar Mill, Zira, Vice-President, Akali Dal, Circle Zira, Village lambardar, President and Cashier of Gurdwara Committee, Members of the Panchayat besides one ex-sarpanch.