Settlements between the parties in non-compoundable offences can be considered for determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.03.2015 passed against the appellants by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga in Sessions case No.39 dated 05.11.2012 arising from FIR No.31 dated 24.05.2007 under Sections 307, 148 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants were sentenced as under:-

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Facts, in brief, are that on 24.05.2007, complainant Gurcharan Singh made a statement before the police that land of appellant no.1 adjoins his land. A dispute qua the common passage way between their lands was going on for about 10-12 years. On 23.05.2007, after the official demarcation proceedings were already completed by the concerned officials and after they had left, appellant no.1 directed appellant no.2 to cultivate the portion of the said passage way to amalgamate into his own land. When the complainant, who was present at the spot with his brother Kewal Singh and his sons Hardeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh, objected to the actions of the appellants, a dispute arose. Appellant no.3 caught hold of Kewal Singh from his arms and when the sons of the complainant advanced towards Kewal Singh in order to save him, appellant no.1 and another accused who were armed with spades started scuffling with them. Then appellant no.3 raised a cry telling appellant no.1 to fire a gunshot due to which he fired multiple gunshots. One bullet hit the chest of Kewal Singh. Thereupon, the said appellants-accused ran from the spot. Injured Kewal Singh was then shifted to the Civil Hospital, Badhni Kalan from where he was ultimate referred to a hospital in Ludhiana due to his critical condition. Thereafter, the above-mentioned FIR was registered but during the course of investigation Appellant no.2 & 3 as well as other co-accused namely Bhagat Singh and Bansa Singh were found to be innocent. Weapon of offence was recovered from appellant no.1. On competition of formal investigation, challan under Section 336 of IPC was presented against Harbhagwan Singh only. However, the complainant filed a complaint against the appellants and three other persons namely Bhagat Singh, Bansa Singh and Balbir Singh in which all the aforesaid accused except Balbir Singh were summoned to face trial under Sections 307, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act. Ultimately, only the appellants were convicted as mentioned above.

CONTENTIONS

3. Mr. Vishal Tartyal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Param Preet Singh Brar, Advocate for the complainant and filed the power of attorney, which is taken on record.

4. Custody certificates dated 02.02.2024 and status report by way of an affidavit of Mr. Shubeg Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga on behalf of respondent-State of Punjab has been filed and the same are taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia contends that the appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 are real brothers and after the intervention of the common relatives, they have settled their dispute amicably and effected a compromise dated 18.05.2015 among themselves and since then, they are living in the same village with complete harmony and relies upon Ram Gopal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh.

6. Learned counsel representing respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that he has no objection in case the present appeal is allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them on the basis of compromise.

7