An appeal against conviction and sentenced for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC was dismissed but the sentence was commuted to the period already undergone considering the compromise and length of proceedings.
The sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and fine was revised to the period 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.
in/and Crl. Appeal No.S-2754-SB of 2009
1
Crl. Misc. No.10026 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.10026 of 2012 in/and Crl. Appeal No.S-2754-SB of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.03.2012
Dalip Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
Crl. Misc. No.10026 of 2012
This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for
disposal of the above noted appeal in terms of the compromise and affidavit (Annexures A-1 and A-2).
Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the present application is allowed as prayed for and the appeal is, accordingly, being taken up for hearing today itself.
Crl. Misc. No.10026 of 2012 in/and Crl. Appeal No.S-2754-SB of 2009 2
Crl. Appeal No.S-2754-SB of 2009
This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 25.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :-
| Offence | Rigorous imprisonment |
Fine | In default imprisonment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 307 IPC | Five years | Rs.500/- | Three months |
Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset did not argue the case on merit but alternatively prayed that since the parties have entered into compromise and the occurrence had taken place as far back as in the year 2007 and the appellant has already undergone about three years out of the total sentence of five years, therefore, lenient view be taken and the accused be acquitted of the charge.
Compromise Deed (Annexure A-1) and Affidavit of the complainant (Annexure A-2) have also been placed on record vide Crl. Misc. No.10026 of 2012 in this regard. As per the affidavit of the complainant, he has no objection, if any relief is granted to the appellant.
After going through the judgment rendered by the courts below, the learned counsel has rightly not argued the case on merits.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has instructions to state that the matter has been compromised and has also admitted the factum of compromise placed on record as Annexures A-1 and A-2.
The appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, the same being non-compoundable, the compromise cannot be accepted to compound the same.
However, having given my thoughtful consideration to the contention, it is seen that the occurrence in this case had taken place in
Crl. Appeal No.S-2754-SB of 2009 3
Crl. Misc. No.10026 of 2012 in/and
the year 2007. Since then, the appellant is facing agony of the protracted proceedings. The compromise had been effected between the parties and the learned counsel for the complainant has also admitted the factum of compromise. Under these circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence suffered by him is reduced to the period already undergone.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed except for the modification in the sentence to that as already undergone.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 14.03.2012 JUDGE gurpreet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of the appellant convicted under Section 307 IPC can be reduced to the period already undergone due to compromise and protracted proceedings.
Whether a compromise deed is valid for an offence under Section 307 IPC which is non-compoundable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dalip Kumar
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
