BALWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this revision petition is for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 1.4.2013 passed by the trial Court vide which the petitioners were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 452 read with Section 34 IPC as well as the order of sentence dated 2.4.2013 vide which the petitioners were initially sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each as well as the judgment dated 10.5.2016 passed by the lower appellate Court vide which the lower appellate Court upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 326, 324 and 452 read with Section 34 IPC. However, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants keeping in view the compromise entered between the parties. The appellate Court recorded a finding that since the petitioners/accused were in custody from 10.6.2003 to 18.9.2003, therefore, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by them.

(2.) During the pendency of the present revision petition, on a representation made by the parties that they are closely related to each other as the father of the petitioners/accused and the father of the injured/complainant are real brothers and they have effected a valid and legal compromise, both the parties were directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram for recording their respective statements in support of the compromise.

(3.) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram vide his report dated 5.9.2019 has formed an opinion based on the statements of the accused persons i.e. petitioners, namely, Balwan Singh, Pardeep Kumar and Karan Singh, sons of Nahar Singh and on the basis of the statement of the complainant/injured-Jagbir Singh son of Azad Singh that a valid and legal compromise is effected between the parties, which is voluntarily without any pressure or coercion and both the parties have also recorded their statements on their own volition. The report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is supported by the original statements of the complainant as well as the accused persons. Both the parties were duly identified by the counsels representing them in the trial Court and the compromise and affidavit of the complainant are attached with the report as Ex.Cl and Ex.C2, respectively.