DAVINDER SINGH Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by four appellants, namely, Devinder Singh, Balwant Singh, Varinder Singh and Gurnam Singh, against the judgment, dated 13th March, 1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. By this judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, Gumam Singh under Section 333/332 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one year, under Section 333 IPC and to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 332 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Devinder Singh, Balwant Singh and Varinder Singh under Section 332 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year under this Section. The said appellants were convicted also under Section 303 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for one year.

(2.) THIS appeal was admitted on 22nd March, 1995 and on that day, notice was issued to UT Chandigarh for 17th April, 1995 regarding suspension of sentence. On 20th of April, 1995, the substantive sentences awarded to the appellants was ordered to be suspended and each one of the appellants was directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Chandigarh. During the pendency of the appeal, application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 8210 of 1995 was filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for placing on record the affidavit of complainant Raj Pal in respect of compromise effected between the appellants and the complainant. It was also prayed in this application that since the matter had been compromised, the appeal may be decided in terms of the compromise in the interest of justice. Notice of this application was issued to the State and also to the complainant on 11th May 1995. The complainant Raj Pal appeared in person in the Court on 23rd August, 1995 and submitted that he had signed and sworn the affidavit dated 4th May, 1995 which was filed along with Cr. Misc. No. 8210 of 1995. The said Raj Pal identified his signatures on both the pages of this affidavit. In view of the statement of the complainant, the main case was directed to be listed for final arguments on 13th November, 1995 the arguments were, however, heard on 15th December, 1995.

(3.) MR . Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the appellants and the injured/complainant have amicably settled their dispute and they want to live in peace. He further submitted that the injured has been compensated suitably by the appellants and these facts have duly been mentioned in the affidavit signed and sworn by the injured Raj Pal. He further submitted that though the offence under sections 302/33 IPC are not compoundable, a lenient view may be taken in the matter as the appellants had been in custody for about two months. He, therefore, contended that the sentences awarded to the appellants should be reduced to the one already undergone. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2148 and a judgment of this court in Sulakhan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR 784 : [1996(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 95 (Pb. and Hry.)].