Lakhbir Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3226

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Lakhbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
CRA-S NO. 2065-SB of 2007 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Paramapreet Singh Paul, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1-State:Mr. J.S. Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondents No. 2:Mr. Mayank Aggarwal for Ms. Maloo Liberhan, Advocates.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 186, 307, 332, 333, 353, and 325 - Punjab Excise Act, 1914 - Section 61(1)(a) - Appeal against conviction - Convict's prior conviction dated 26.09.2007 was altered following a compromise between the appellant and the respondent. The charges under various sections including grievous hurt were evaluated, leading to the acquittal of the co-accused. The Court acknowledged the compromised nature of proceedings as having satisfied proper grounds under Sections 482 and 320 Cr.P.C. (Paras 4, 5, 15-32).

Facts of the case:
The FIR implicated the appellant in a traffic incident involving grievous injury to a police officer, where evidence under specific IPC sections was insufficiently substantiated.

Findings of Court:
The respondent did not substantiate his public duty claim, leading to the allowance of the appeal based on voluntary compromise.

Issues: Can a conviction arising from grievous injuries be overturned under a voluntary compromise?

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that previous conviction under Section 325 was appropriate based on a lack of sufficient evidence for attempted murder, compounded due to the voluntary settlement, aligning with principles set forth in similar higher court judgments.

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. discussion on the effect of legal compromise. (Para 8 , 15 , 17)
3. details of compliance with court orders on compromise. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final outcome and order of the court. (Para 14 , 36)
5. court discretion on compounding non-compoundable offences. (Para 20 , 23)

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J.

By this judgment and order, I propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. CRA-S-2065-SB-2007 along-with Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. CRM-25060-2022, CRM-144-2023 and CRM-1631-2023.

2. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 26.09.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rupnagar, in Sessions Case No. 35, dated 03.10.2005, arising out of FIR No. 26, dated 14.06.2005, under Sections 307 , 353, 186, 332, 427 IPC and Section 61 (1)(a) of the PUNJAB EXCISE ACT , 1914, registered at Police Station Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar, appellant - Lakhbir Singh has preferred Criminal Appeal No. CRA-S-2065-SB-2007.

3. Aforementioned FIR was registered against appellant - Lakhbir Singh and co-accused Kamaljit Singh alias Lally with the allegations that on 14.06.2005, at about 4.30p.m., when a police party headed by SI/SHO Raminder Singh was patrolling at T-point of village Azampur, one Black colour Cielo Car, bearing Registration No. HR-26-C-5161, came from the side of Nurpur Bedi in a very high speed and two persons were sitting in the car. A signal was given to stop the car, but driver of the car did not stop the car and tried to run over P.H.G. Avtar Singh (respondent No. 2), with an intention to kill him, but Avtar Singh saved himself by changing his position. However, car struck him and caused injuries on his right thigh & right hand and his rifle was also damaged. Occupants of the car left the car in the bushes on the bank of the river and ran away. On search of the car, 432 bottles of Kingpal Premier Whisky made in Himachal Pradesh, were recovered.

4. After registration of case and investigation, accused were arrested on 17.06.2005. Since the offence under Section 307 IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions, case was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rupnagar, vide order dated 25.08.2005, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib. Both the accused, i.e. Lakhbir Singh (appellant) and Kamaljit Singh alias Lally faced trial for the charges under Sections 307 , 427, 186, 332, 333 and 353 IPC, Sections 181 and 192 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT and Section 61 of the PUNJAB EXCISE ACT . They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. After conclusion of the trial, complete evidence was scanned by learned trial Court and came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove or establish charges under Sections 186 , 332, 333 and 353 IPC and Section 61 of the PUNJAB EXCISE ACT . Learned Trial Court further held that identity of accused - Lakhbir Singh (appellant herein) as driver of Cielo car and co-accused Kamaljit Singh alias Lally was established. Car driven by appellant - Lakbir Singh struck P.H.G. Avtar Singh (respondent No. 2), as a result of which he suffered injuries on his person and fracture on the left and right thumb. The injuries were declared grievous, vide opinion Ex. PC by Dr. Sunita Nadda (PW-1). Giving benefit of doubt, co-accused Kamaljit Singh was acquitted from all the charges framed against him. However, accused Lakhbir Singh (appellant) was convicted under Section 325 IPC, and acquitted under other charges framed against him. It is pertinent to mention here that accused were charged under Section 307 IPC and no specific charge was framed under Section 325 IPC. Since offence under Section 325 IPC is lesser as compared to Section 307 IPC, therefore, learned Trial Court convicted accused Lakhbir Singh (appellant) under Section 325 IPC,