Partly allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of Hy.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2017CRA-S/10/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but modified the sentence. The court accepted a compromise between the appellant and respondent, noting the protracted 15-year trial and no useful purpose in further incarceration. Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hy. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRA-S-10-SB of 2005 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA-S-10-SB of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.10.2017

Vijay Kumar

....Appellant

Versus

The State of Haryana and another

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶11

Present: - Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Chopra, DAG, Haryana. Ms. Shallie Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

On the oral request of learned counsel for the parties, main appeal, which is on the regular board of this Court, is taken up for final disposal in view of compromise between the parties.

¶14

During the pendency of the instant appeal, appellant moved applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to compromise the matter and on the basis of compromise for quashing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 08.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, holding him guilty under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of ` 4,000/- under Section 307 IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced to Ravinder Singh 2017.10.31 17:36 undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶15

-2-

¶16

CRA-S-10-SB of 2005 (O&M)

¶17

Arms Act along with fine of ` 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶18

Consequently, the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to get their statements recorded qua compromise and the trial Court was directed to report as to whether the compromise between the parties was genuine, without any pressure or undue influence. In response thereto, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad, has submitted his report vide letter dated 945 dated 12.10.2017 duly forwarded by learned District and Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide letter No.8676 dated 13.10.2017.

¶19

According to the report, the Additional Sessions Judge is satisfied that compromise entered into between the parties is genuine and there was no pressure or coercion in any manner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out in this case as it is a no injury case. The shot was allegedly fired in the air, which did not hit anyone. The appellant/accused and the complainant are the cousins and living in the same town.

¶21

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that appellant has faced the protracted trial for more than 15 years, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending appellant, who is stated to be on bail, behind the bars any further. More so, the compromise entered in between the parties, who are closely related to each other, would bring harmony in their relations. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2004 qua conviction of the

¶22

Ravinder Singh 2017.10.31 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶23

-3-

¶24

CRA-S-10-SB of 2005 (O&M)

¶25

appellant is upheld. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant to this extent is hereby dismissed. However, in view of the above discussion, the order of sentence dated 08.12.2004 is modified to the extent that the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶26

With the observations made above, the present appeal is disposed

¶27

of.

¶28

(RAMENDRA JAIN) October 27, 2017 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶29

Ravinder Singh 2017.10.31 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Vijay Kumar v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kawaljit Singh @ Shera and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Gurvinder Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Neelam and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Narinder Singh Dehal Vs State of Haryana

Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.