SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Raghbir Singh (Since Deceased) through LRs & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-S NO. 1241-SB of 2005 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, and Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate, in CRA-S-1241-SB of 2005.
Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate, and Mr. Satbir Mor, Advocate in CRA-S-1282-SB of 2005.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 307, 323, and 506 read with 149 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Convictions of appellants for offences related to unlawful assembly and grievous injuries; findings established that while intent under Section 307 IPC was not proven, the assembly aimed at inflicting injuries; sentences adjusted post-compromise. (Paras 21 and 23)

(B) Compromise - Compounding of offences after conviction - High Court can quash proceedings based on genuine compromise, considering severity of charges and the relationship between parties post-injury. (Paras 19 and 21)

Facts of the case:
Cross appeals were filed by different groups involved in a violent altercation over a land dispute, leading to multiple convictions. The appeals arose from the same FIR, resulting in contrasting charges against the parties involved.

Findings of Court:
Convictions were affirmed, but sentences modified to reflect time already served by appellants; fines were retained and repurposed for victim compensation.

Issues: Main issue was whether the matter could be quashed post-conviction based on a compromise between the parties involved in the violent incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conciliatory approach, prioritizing harmony and community relations, was valid, subject to an assessment of the seriousness of the offences.

Result: Appeals partially granted; sentences modified and affirmed.

Table of Content
1. case background; involvement of convict parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. trial court's findings on guilt regarding primary charges. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments centered around compromise resolution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. legality of compounding post-conviction context. (Para 17 , 21)
5. modification of sentence reflective of compromise. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

By this judgment and order, I propose to dispose of two Criminal Appeal Nos. CRA-S-1241-SB-2005 and CRA-S-1282-SB-2005, which have arisen out of a case of version and cross-version, as detailed hereunder:

CRA-S-1241-SB-2005:

1(i). Impugning the judgment of conviction dated 09.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 12.07.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2004, instituted on 22.03.2002/08.04.2004, in case FIR No. 294, dated 29.11.2001, under Sections 148 , 307, 323, and 506 read with 149 IPC, and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT , registered at Police Station Pehowa, all the seven convicts/appellants in the said sessions case filed this appeal. Their names are:

    (i) Raghbir Singh son of Mewa Singh;

    (ii) Chandi Ram son of Ramdia;

    (iii) Suraj Bhan son of Abhey Ram;

    (iv) Baljit Singh son of Banwari Lal;

    (v) Ramesh Kumar son of Raghbir Singh;

    (vi) Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha son of Charan Singh; and

    (vii) Sanjeev Kumar son of Balbir Singh.

CRA-S-1282-SB-2005:

1(ii). Impugning separate judgment of conviction dated 09.07.2005 and separate order of sentence dated 12.07.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2004, instituted on 22.05.2002/08.04.2004, as cross version, in case FIR No. 294, dated 29.11.2001, under Sections 148 , 307, 323 read with 149 IPC, and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT , registered at Police Station Pehowa, all the six convicts/appellants in the said sessions case filed this appeal. Their names are:

    (i) Ramesh Kumar @ Polu son of Chhotu Ram;

    (ii) Subhash Chand son of Chhotu Ram;

    (iii) Darbara Singh son of Ballu Bajigar;

    (iv) Rulda Ram son of Niranjan Singh;

    (v) Randhir Singh son of Chhotu Ram; and

    (vi) Rishi Pal son of Sandal.

2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details as unfolded by prosecution version are as under:

Prosecution version in CRA-S-1282-SB-2005:

2(i). On 29.11.2001, statement of injured Sanjeev Kumar was recorded, which was to the effect that he was agriculturist and their Dera adjoins the forest towards southern side of village Seonsar and their fields also adjoins the dera. On 28.11.2001, at about 12.00 noon, he and his father Balbir Singh were at their dera. Karambir and Dhan Singh had come to them for taking their tractor on rent. At that point of time, Randhir Singh, who was at a distance of 3 killas and holding double barrel gun; Ramesh alias Polu having a gun; Subhash having a lathi; Darbara Singh carrying a gandasi; Rulda Ram and Rishi Pal having lathis; started ploughing their (Sanjeev Kumar's) land with the help of tractor in which the wheat crop was sown. Sanjeev Kumar and his father went for stopping the aggressor party and as soon as they reached near them, Rulda Ram and Rishi Pal raised a lalkara that he (Sanjeev Kumar) should be taught a lesson how he dared to stop their tractor and by saying so, Randhir Singh and Ramesh alias Polu fired at them with the intention to kill them and the gun shots hit his right arm and back. On hearing their noise, Dhan Singh and Karam Singh came from the dera to get Sanjeev Kumar free from the clutches of the assailants/accused. Injuries were also caused to Dhan Singh and Karam Singh. Sanjeev Kumar further stated that on receiving the gun shot injuries, he fell down on the earth. Darbara and Subhash also gave fists and slaps blows to his father. Karambir and Dhan Singh ran away from the spot. All the assailants/accused went from there after causing injuries to them. He and his father were taken to the hospital in a tractor-trolley where from he

                                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                          1
                                          2
                                          3
                                          4
                                          5
                                          6
                                          7
                                          8
                                          9
                                          10
                                          11
                                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                          supreme today icon
                                          logo-black

                                          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                          Please visit our Training & Support
                                          Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                          qr

                                          Scan Me!

                                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                          whatsapp-icon Back to top