Partly allowed

Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2014CRA-S/3061/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC for grievous hurt, the High Court held that while the offence is non-compoundable, a compromise between parties during pendency of appeal allows reducing the sentence to that already undergone and setting aside the fine. A Panchayati compromise was taken on record to effect this relief.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of by reducing the period of imprisonment to that already undergone and dispensing with the payment of fine.

Hakam Singh Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 13.08.2014

Hakam Singh

.....Appellant

versus

State of Punjab

.... Respondent

Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Jashanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. D. S. Malwai, Advocate for the complainant.

¶13

S.S. SARON, J.

¶14

Crl. Misc. No.23692 of 2013

¶15

Notice of criminal miscellaneous application be issued to Advocate General, Punjab.

¶16

Mr. Jashanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab on the asking of the Court accepts notice.

¶17

Mr. D. S. Malwai, Advocate for the complainant also accepts notice.

¶18

Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate submits that the matter between the parties has been compromised and the Panchayati compromise (Annexure A-1) may be taken on record. Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection to the same. Learned counsel for the State submits that though he has no objection to the compromise being taken on record, however, the same is not liable to be taken into consideration at this stage as the appellant

¶19

AMIT KAUNDALstands convicted and sentenced. 2014.11.11 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

-2-

¶21

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M)

¶22

Be that as it may, the Panchayati compromise (Annexure A-1) is taken on record subject to just exceptions.

¶23

Criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.

¶24

Crl. Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010

¶25

The appeal has been filed by Hakam Singh-appellant against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' - for short) for causing grievous hurt with sharp side of the 'gandasa' on the head of Badal Singh. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years; besides, pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶26

The appellant-Hakam Singh in fact has been convicted in the cross-version statement Ex.P1 given by Badal Singh complainant. According to Badal Singh complainant, his land is situated on the rear side of Guru Ram Dass Public School. The same is irrigated by canal water through a 'pucca' water channel. The water channel passes from the rear side of the school. Badal Singh complainant had gone to irrigate his land through the said water channel on 01.04.2006 at about 4.00 pm. He, however, found that the water channel had been filled with earth. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur (accused No.5) wife of Hakam Singh-appellant was sitting on the roof top of the school building. Badal Singh complainant asked her as to why the water course was filled with earth. She raised a 'lalkara' to teach him a lesson for coming again

¶27

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.11.11 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

-3-

¶29

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M)

¶30

and again to use the water course. In the meanwhile, five-seven persons came on the roof top of the school to help Sukhwinder Kaur. All of them started throwing and hurling brick bats at Badal Singh complainant. Badal Singh in order to save himself ran towards his house but he was waylaid by Hakam Singh-appellant armed with 'gandasa', Bahadur Singh armed with 'takua' (an instrument of cutting) and their nephew (Ranjit Singh accused No.4) armed with 'kahi', Gurmej Singh armed with 'dang'. Hakam Singh – appellant inflicted a 'gandasa' blow from its sharp side on the head of Badal Singh. Bahadur Singh (accused No.2) inflicted a 'takua' blow on the right side of the head of the complainant. Their nephew (Ranjit Singh accused No.4) inflicted a 'kahi' blow, which hit on the back of the head of Badal Singh. Sukhwinder Kaur (accused No.5) who was on the roof top of the school building had inflicted a brick bat blow on the left shoulder of Badal Singh. On hearing the noise, Gulzara Singh, Surinder Singh and Dalbara Singh came forwarded to rescue Badal Singh from the grip of the accused. The accused, however, inflicted injuries to them as well. Brother of the complainant namely Bahadur Singh also witnessed the occurrence. After inflicting injuries, the accused fled away along with their respective weapons. All the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Moga where they were medico legally examined.

¶31

The doctor at the Civil Hospital, Moga sent memo (Ex.P10) to the police station. The police reached the hospital on 2.4.2006 and obtained opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured Badal Singh to make a statement. The doctor declared him fit to make a statement. Statement Ex.P1 of Badal Singh injured

¶32

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.11.11 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

-4-

¶34

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M)

¶35

complainant was recorded. On the basis of the said statement FIR Ex.P34 was recorded. After completion of investigation, the police report (challan) was filed. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the said Court. Charges against the accused were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324 and 34 IPC. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has convicted Hakam Singh – appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years; besides, pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The other accused namely Bahadur Singh, Gurmail Singh, Ranjit Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur were released on probation in terms of Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/- each with one surety in the like amount each undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the period of one year; besides, they were directed to pay litigation expenses i.e. Rs.2000/- in case of Bahadur Singh, Gurmail Singh and Ranjit and Rs.3000/- in case of Sukhwinder Kaur. Hakam Singh-appellant aggrieved against his conviction and sentence has filed the present appeal.

¶36

The appeal was admitted on 09.12.2010. During the pendency of the appeal, the sentence of imprisonment of the Hakam Singh-appellant was suspended by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2011.

¶37

In terms of Crl. Misc. No.23692 of 2013 that had been filed, a compromise dated 2.2.2013 has been effected between Hakam Singh son of Chanan Singh on the one side (first party); and AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.11.11 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

-5-

¶39

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M)

¶40

(1) Badal Singh (2) Bahadur Singh sons of Darshan Singh, (3) Gulzara Singh, (4) Darbara Singh sons of Pala Singh son of Kapur Singh, (5) Surinder Singh (6) Angrej Singh sons of Hakam Singh son of Pala Singh (second party) on the other. In terms of the compromise, respectable persons of the village had met on 02.02.2013 and the dispute between the parties was compromised. It was resolved and agreed between the parties that no water channel passes through the playground of Guru Amar Dass Public Senior Secondary School, Smadh Bhai and neither would the second party of Badal Singh etc. raise any objection regarding passing of the water course through the playground of the School. It was further agreed that Hakam Singh first party would be bound to withdraw the appeal filed against the second party Badal Singh etc. pending in the Court of Shri Karamjit Singh, District and Sessions Judge, Moga, the next date of which was 18.2.2013. Apart from this the first party Hakam Singh would be bound in terms of the Compromise to withdraw the appeal filed by him against Badal Singh in the Irrigation Department.

¶41

In view of the compromise, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the matter having been amicably settled. He has no objection to the appeal being allowed.

¶42

Learned counsel for the State submits that in case the finding of conviction is recorded, the appeal is not liable to be allowed on the basis a compromise.

¶43

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter.

¶44

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh v. State of

¶45

Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1 considered the case

¶46

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.11.11 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶47

-6-

¶48

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M)

¶49

in which the compromise had been reached at between the parties involving an offence under Section 307 IPC. It was held that by keeping aside the statutory provisions i.e. Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence which is not compoundable. However, while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which, the Court may keep in mind. The sentence awarded to the convict in the said case was reduced to that already undergone. Reliance was placed on the cases of Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P, JT 1988 (3) SC 366 (1). Taking the fact of compromise entered into between the parties, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed on the appellant convict to that already undergone.

¶50

This Court in Joginder Ram and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 495 held that in a case of non compoundable offences during appeal where parties had entered into a compromise and filed a petition before this Court for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise, then the parties ought to first approach the appellate court which is competent to grant any relief including release of accused on probation on the basis of compromise. Besides, the petitioners would have a legal right to approach this Court if any adverse orders is still made against them. Reliance was placed on the case of Ramchandra Singh and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2003) 10 SCC 234. In Ramchandra Singh's case

¶51

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.11.11 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶52

-7-

¶53

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M)

¶54

(supra), the petitioner therein was convicted for the offences under Section 498-A and 323 IPC. The parties entered into a compromise during the pendency of the appeal. On the basis of the compromise, the appellant therein was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 IPC. The complainant-wife in the said case had filed an affidavit stating that she did not wish to pursue the case; besides, she had also remarried by then. The conviction for the offence under Section 498-A IPC was directed to be maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment (one year in the case) was ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone. One of the appellant was released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 so as to ensure that his job may not be put to jeopardy.

¶55

The Supreme Court in Gulab Dass and others v. State of MP, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 220 held that after conviction of accused under Section 307 IPC, the parties are not to be allowed to compound that offence as offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable; the sentences, however, was reduced to that already undergone.

¶56

Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Shri Iqbal Singh Brar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent Sub Jail Moga wherein it has been mentioned that Hakam Singh-appellant had undergone imprisonment of one year, one month and one day as on 22.09.2011. Thereafter, he has been released on bail. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, in view of the compromise dated 02.02.2013 reached at between the parties, it would be just and expedient to dispose of the appeal by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone and dispensing with the

¶57

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.11.11 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶58

Crl.Appeal No.S-3061-SB of 2010 (O & M)

¶59

-8-

¶60

payment of fine.

¶61

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed by reducing the period of imprisonment of Hakam Singh to that already undergone. The order of payment of fine is set aside.

¶62

13.08.2014 A.Kaundal

¶63

Note: Whether to be referred to the reporter: Yes

¶64

AMIT KAUNDAL 2014.11.11 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajwant Kaur etc. Vs Sukhdev Singh etc.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mohinder Singh and Others

Gurcharan Singh Sodhi Vs Goetze (India) Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Patiala

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mallu Ram Vs State of Punjab

Dhanwantry Education Society Vs Panjab University & Ors.