Mardana Singh @ Dana Singh vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
Mardana Singh @ Dana Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S-3780-SB of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the Appellants
For the Respondent: Mr. HS Sullar, Sr. DAG, Punjab

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 324 and 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 320 - Conviction for attempted murder and other offences - Accused were sentenced to concurrent imprisonment, later appealed for sentence reduction based on compromise and hardship - Court acknowledged compromise and reduced sentence to period already undergone while maintaining fine. (Paras 1, 10, 13, 15)

(B) Compounding of Offences - While Section 320 IPC specifies non-compoundable offences, courts may consider compromise for reducing sentences in exceptional cases. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
On 21.05.2015, the complainant was assaulted in his home, resulting in injuries to him and his brother by the accused, leading to conviction on multiple charges.

Findings of Court:
The conviction is upheld but the sentence is modified to reflect time already served due to the compromise and circumstances of the appellants.

Issues: Whether the conviction should be upheld and if the sentence could be reduced based on the parties' compromise.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized an understanding of justice in light of the personal circumstances of the appellants, allowing for the reduction of sentences even for serious charges under special conditions of compromise.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of assault incident. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments for sentence reduction. (Para 7 , 8)
3. court's corroboration of evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. supreme court precedent on sentence reduction. (Para 13 , 14)
5. modification of sentence order. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment/order dated 31.08.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:

Accused-Mardana Singh @ Dana

Offence u/s	Imprisonment	Fine	Default sentence
307/34 IPC	RI for four years	Rs.5000/-	RI Six months
450 IPC	RI for three years	Rs.5000/-	RI six months
324/34 IPC	RI for three years	Rs.3000/-	RI six months

Accused Karamjit Singh @ Manna Singh

Offence u/s	Imprisonment	Fine	Default sentence
307/34 IPC	RI for four years	Rs.5000/-	RI Six months
324 IPC	RI for three years	Rs.3000/-	RI six months

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The facts, which are necessary for adjudication of the present case are that when on 21.05.2015, at about 7 p.m complainant-Nar Singh was bathing, accused Dana Singh entered his house and gave a kirch blow on left side of his stomach. When he raised a noise 'marta-marta', his brother Bhagwan Singh came at the spot and he tried to apprehend the accused, who however, ran away towards the street. In the meantime, accused-Manna Singh came across them holding a knife and caused injury on the left side of the chest of his brother Bhawan Singh, whereas accused Dana Singh also inflicted a kirch blow injury on the left side of the stomach of the complainant. On raising raula, the accused fled from the spot with their respective weapons. Thereafter, the injured were got admitted in GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot and the FIR in question was registered.

3. After completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the accused-petitioner. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC were framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined as many as 11 PWs. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.. He denied all the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in the prosecution case while pleading false implication by the police. He, however, did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed in para 1.

6. Aggrieved accused-appellants have preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the very outset, submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction and prays for reducing the sentence awarded to the appellants on account of the facts, that the matter stands compromised between the parties; appellant No.1 has undergone more than 1 year, 8 months, whereas appellant No.1 year 2 months out of the total sentence of 4 years awarded to them; are poor labourers; sole bread winner of their respective families; not involved in any other case and have been facing the agony of protracted trial since 2015.

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the present appeal.

9. Heard and perused.

10. Though, the appellants have not challenged the judgment of conviction, but this Court still deems it appropriate to examine the same. PW-1 Nar Singh, who was the injured-complainant in his deposition specifically named the appellants causing injuries to him as well as his brother Bhawan Singh.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document