HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARI Singh. Jawahara and Ram Chander appellants were : convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge. Sirsa vide order dated September 19. 1985 and sentenced vide order dated September 21. 1985. Hari Singh was sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo Imprisonment for six months under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Jawahara was similarly sentenced as above under Section 307 read with Section 34. Indian Penal Code. Ram Chander was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34. Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five Years and to pay, a fine of Rs. 250/-in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. They have come up in appeal. A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the complainant P.W. 7 Nihal Singh to place on the record compromise deed executed by him with the appellants with respect to the dispute. Along with this compromise deed, affidavit of Nihal Singh son of Shiv Nand has also been filed that the parties have compromised as per compromise deed produced. This petition has been filed by Nihal Singh through Mr. Umesh Wadhwa, Advocate, who has pun in appearance.

(2.) IN view of the fact that the parties have compromised, learned counsel for the appellants has not argued the appeal on merits. He has requested that since the matter has been compromised this compromise may be taken Into, consideration in the matter of sentence only.

(3.) SINCE the matter has been compromised between the parties, the same can be taken into consideration on the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Puja and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 Supreme Court, 2418,which was a case under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and giving effect to the compromise entered into between the parties, the sentence was reduced to already undergone which was for about four months. It was observed that in a non-compoundable case the compromise could be taken into consideration on the question of sentence. Reference has also been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh v. The State of (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 Supreme Court, 1200. That was a case under Section 325 and 432, Indian Penal Code, the compromise between the parties was taken into consideration and the sentence was reduced to already undergone.