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) 3169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Manpreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRA-S NO. 2410-SB of 2011 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, Advocate, for Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, for complainant & injured - respondent Nos. 2 and 3(in both appeals).

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 307, 452, and 34 - Criminal Appeals against conviction for attempt to murder and house trespass - Convicted appellants sought to quash conviction based on a compromise - Court emphasizes that such offenses are serious and generally treated as crimes against society - Compromise needs careful consideration as per Supreme Court guidelines - In this case, nature of injury and the fact that the victim's statement supported the compromise led to a reduction in sentence while increasing the fine and directing compensation to the victim. (Paras 10, 14, 17, 23)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court's inherent powers to quash proceedings must be exercised sparingly, especially concerning non-compoundable offenses. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for inflicting serious injury with a knife on Anupinder Singh after a dispute related to their conduct at a dairy. The compromise was deemed genuine by the parties involved.

Findings of Court:
The interim report validated the compromise, but the injury's severity required affirmation of conviction while revising the sentence in light of the prolonged duration since the crime.

Issues: Can a conviction for violent offenses be quashed due to a compromise? Findings indicated the courts may consider relationships post-crime alongside the injury's nature.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the severity of the offenses under Sections 307 and 452 IPC, noting that compromises in such serious cases require proper evaluation but can lead to sentence modification.

Result: Appeals dismissed with a modified sentence and increased fines.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

This judgement and order shall dispose of two Criminal Appeals, i.e. CRA-S-2410-SB-2011 and CRA-S-2474-SB-2011, filed by appellant(s) Manpreet Singh and Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa, respectively, impugning the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.08.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No. 5, dated 12.01.2006, RBT No. 056, dated 01.06.2009, in case FIR No. 266, dated 07.09.2005, under Sections 307 , 452 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Payal.

Appellant-Manpreet Singh was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and appellant-Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Both of them were also convicted under Section 452 IPC. Vide order of sentence dated 19.08.2011, they were ordered to undergo sentence as under:-

Name of convict/ appellant

Under Section

Sentence

Fine

In Default

Manpreet Singh

307 r/w 34 IPC

7 years R.I.

Rs.2,000/-

4 months R.I.

452 IPC

5 years R.I.

Rs. 1,000/-

3 months R.I.

Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa

307 IPC

7 years R.I.

Rs.2,000/-

4 months R.I.

452 IPC

5 years R.I.

Rs. 1,000/-

3 months R.I.

2. As per prosecution version, on 7.9.2005, ASI Ranjit Singh along with other police officials were present at Bus Stand, Payal in connection with patrol duty when Sukhdev Singh son of Gurbachan Singh came present and got recorded his statement to the effect that he is an agriculturist. After the death of his cousin Ajmer Singh, they got opened milk dairy for his nephew Anupinder Singh. There is a Chauntra near their dairy. Jaspreet Singh son of Labh Singh, Motu son of Davinder Singh used to indulge in bad acts while sitting on the Chauntra. His nephew Anupinder Singh prevented them from sitting on the Chauntra as their bad acts were affecting their milk dairy business adversely. On 7.9.2005 at about 8.30 AM, when he along with his nephew Anupinder Singh were managing the collected milk at their dairy, Jaspreet Singh holding a Churra (knife) in his right hand along with Motu entered their dairy. Motu caught hold his nephew Anupinder Singh from arms and Jaspreet Singh inflicted Churra (knife) blow, held by him in his right hand, on heart side of his nephew Anupinder Singh, with an intention to kill him. His nephew Anupinder Singh got injured on the heart side and started bleeding. His nephew Anupinder Singh said that Jassa and Motu had inflicted the injury without any fault of him and his nephew fell on the ground. He was taking care of his nephew Anupinder Singh and in the meantime Jaspreet Singh alongwith Churra (knife) ran away from the spot. He raised alarm which attracted his other nephew Aman son of Gurcharan Singh at the spot and after making arrangement of the vehicle, they got Anupinder Singh admitted in Civil Hospital Payal. Keeping in view his critical condition, the Doctor referred him, and they got admitted his nephew at Dayanand Hospital, Ludhiana. His nephew was unconscious. His nephew Anupinder Singh had been injured by Jaspreet Singh and Motu with an intention to kill him as Anupinder Singh had forbidden them from doing objectionable acts while sitting on the Chauntra.

3. After completion of investigation and other formalities, accused were challaned and charges for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 , 452 and 34 IPC were framed against them.

4. After conclusion of trial and discussing complete evidence, learned trial Court came to the following conclusion:-

    "19. Thus from the evidence led by the prosecution, it stands clearly proved that the accused had caused injury on the person of Anupinder Singh inside the dairy on vital part of the body and thus the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and as such I hold accused Jaspreet Singh guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3

                  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