High Court allowed appellant's appeal. Upheld conviction under IPC for assault and intimidation but reduced sentence to period already undergone due to compromise settlement between victim and legal representatives.
Sentence reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**Crl. Appeal No. 234-SB of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.7.2009 *****
Bijan
.. Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana.
.. Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
**Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The appellant along with one Ram Singh was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Faridabad for charges under Sections 307, 324, 506, 34 IPC. On conclusion of trial, the charges against the appellant and his co-accused were found proved by the learned trial court under Sections 324, 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC for having assaulted Dhan Singh and further criminally intimidated him. Accordingly they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each; under Sections 324 and 506 IPC, they were awarded substantive sentence for one year and three years respectively and in default of payment of fine imposed under first head, they were to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Dis-satisfied with the same appellant Bijan has preferred the instant appeal.
It is apt to mention here co-convict Ram Singh also preferred a Crl. Appeal No. 2288-SB of 2003 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and this Court, keeping in view the compromise arrived at between the parties, vide order dated July 4,2008 disposed of the appeal by ordering modification in the sentence awarded to the appellant therein to the
2
period of sentence already undergone by him. But, inadvertently, the instant appeal and the revision preferred by the injured were not listed and thus, remained pending disposal.
Now the learned counsel for the appellant, by filing Crl. Misc. No. 15248 of 2009 has sought for disposal of the instant appeal in terms of the order passed in Crl. Appeal No.2288 of 2003 of co-convict Ram Singh, pursuant to the compromise entered between the legal representatives of injured Dhan Singh, which was authenticated by them by filing affidavit and suffering of statement in the Court.
A perusal of file shows that the appellant Bijan was also party to the said compromise, which was made the basis of disposal of Crl. Appeal No. 2288 of 2003, but due to non-listing of the instant appeal, the same could not be disposed of at that time.
The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant has undergone about one year and 10 months in custody in relation to the present incident and in view of the compromise having arrived at between the parties, his further sentence be reduced.
I n view of the settlement having arrived at between both the parties, the order of conviction of the appellant is upheld. However, the sentences awarded to him under different heads is reduced to the one already undergone by him.
With the above modification, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
July 22,2009 Jiten
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the appellant should be maintained in light of a compromise settlement between parties?
Whether the appellant's sentence can be modified to the period already undergone due to the settlement?
How should the pending criminal appeal be disposed of considering the order passed in the co-convict's appeal?
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Bijan
State of Haryana
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
