POORAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is under section 482 Cr. P. C. The facts are that applicant Pooran was convicted under section 307 and 324 Penal Code along with two others Ramjilal and Bhagirath by the learned Sessions Judge, Shriganganagar on 25.11.1975, for the aforesaid offences. Each one of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months respectively. On appeal, Bhagirath and Ramjilal were acquitted by this court on Sept. 14, 1976. Conviction, and sentences of Pooran were however maintained.

(2.) Pooran now prays for reconsideration of the sentence. He contents that this court failed to consider that the parties had compromised and a verified composition deed had also been filed. It was urged that in view of Ram Pujan and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2418, his sentences should have been reduced to what had already been undergone by him. Besides, he was a young man and a student at the time of the occurrence. He had no previous conviction to his credit and has already by now served 26 months of sentence. These facts were not noticed by this court, while deciding his appeal. Now it was pointed out that under section 432 Cr. P. C. the court had ample powers to modify its judgement in this respect. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection relied upon Raj Naratn and ors. Vs. The State, AIR 1959 All 315 , In re Biyamma, AIR 1963 Mysore 326 , Lal Singh and Ors. Vs. State & Ors., 1970 Cri.L.J. 267 , Chitwan and Ors. Vs. Mahboob Ilahi, 1970 Cri. L.J. 378.

(3.) I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor who opposes the application I have considered over the matter and the cases cited and also gone through the judgement of this court dated Sept. 14, 1976. The compromise deed was no doubt filed before this judgement was rendered and I certainly failed to notice this fact therein. According to the aforesaid Supreme Court case, the fact of compromise may be taken in account in determining the quantum of sentence in a non-compound-able case. It appears therefore, that in order to secure the ends of justice, this court should modify its judgment in exercise of its inherent power in so far as it relates to the quantum of sentence of the applicant.