JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision relates to the alleged facts and circumstances that in Basti Nau, Jalandhar, in the area of Police Station Division No. 5, Jalandhar, there was an accident caused by a tractor trolley. The aggrieved parties in that accident were asked to compromise the matter by Harbhajan Singh and because of his efforts the matter was finally dropped. The petitioner Jasbir Singh got annoyed when he come to know that Harbhajan Singh got the matter of accident compromised. On 16.11.1986, Harbhajan Singh along with Mohinder Singh was going from Gurdwara Singh Sabha to Basti Nau to purchase some articles. When they reached near Ayra Kanya School, Basti Nau, Jalandhar at about 9.15 P.M. Jasbir Singh petitioner met them and he resorted to violence and picked up a knife and gave a blow with it on the right side of the waist of Harbhajan Singh fracturing his 8th rib. Harbhajan Singh was thereafter removed to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar where he was medically examined. He made a statement before the police and on its basis formal F.I.R. Ex. PW 6/1 was recorded against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and on interrogation he made a disclosure statement Ex. PW6/E, in pursuance of which he got recovered knife Ex.P.1 and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW 6/G.

(2.) ON the testimony of Harbhajan Singh, PW.3 and Mohinder Singh, PW4, the petitioner was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(3.) THE Panchayat of the village got the matter compromised between the parties. The complainant placed on record a written compromise mentioning that the petitioner was regretful on the act done by him. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner which is otherwise well based is not being controverted. The only question raised in this revision is that of sentence. The occurrence took place as far back as on 16.11.1986. Since then the parties to this litigation have been living in peace. There is a written compromise also on record. Even today the injured has come in the Court and has made a statement that he has exonerated the petitioner. The petitioner has already undergone 20 days of imprisonment and has already deposited the fine imposed upon him. In such a case if any sentence is inflicted upon the petitioner it may retard the relations between the two parties and the chain of criminal acts may start between them despite the fact that they have been peaceful for the last 1-1/2 decades. Hence, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone which in my view would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice whereas the sentence of fine and in default thereof is maintained. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.