Avtar Mohammad & Anr vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 15849 P&H

CRR-3307-2013(O&M)                                                  ::1::


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRR-3307-2013 (O&M)
                                                  Date of Decision: 06.12.2022

Avtar Mohammad and anr.
                                                                 ... Petitioners
                                        Versus
State of Punjab
                                                                ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr Nakul Sharma, Advocate,
            for the applicant-petitioners.

            Ms. Ramta Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
                            ****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

On the oral request of the learned counsel for the applicant- petitioners, the applications alongwith main case is taken up for hearing today itself.

CRM-855-2020 The application for placing on record a compromise dated 29.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) is allowed as prayed for. The same is taken on record.

CRM-858-2020 This is an application for impleading Jaswant Singh @ Sant Singh-complainant as respondent No.2 in the array of the parties.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Applicant-complainant Jawant Singh @ Sant Singh is impleaded as respondent No.2 in the array of the parties. The Registry is directed to do the needful.

CRR-3307-2013 (O & M)

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment

dated 09.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib,

1 of 5

CRR-3307-2013(O&M) ::2::

vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.2013 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh in FIR No.102 dated 30.12.2005 under Sections

323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Amloh,

convicting the appellants under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC, has been

dismissed.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18.09.2005 at about

11..00 PM when the injured-complainant Jaswant Singh came out of a shop of

Doctor in his village, accused-Avtar Mohammad @ Tehni (petitioner No.1

herein) in furtherance of common intention of his co-accused Major Singh,

Billu and Chhota Singh (petitioner No.2 herein) caused grievous hurt on his

(complainant's) person and thus committed an offence punishable under

Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC. So, the present case was

registered against the accused. Investigation was initiated, site plan was

prepared and after completion of investigation challan was presented in the

Court.

3. A prima facie case was found to have been made out against all

the accused persons., they were charge-sheeted accordingly.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined complainant-

Jawant Singh as PW-1, Surjit Singh as PW-2, Retd. ASI Tara Singh as PW-3,

Deepak Kataria as PW-4, Dr. K.K. Aggarwal as PW-5, Nirmal Singh as PW-6,

Veena Rani as PW-7, Dr. Jagdish Singh as PW-8, Dr. Jaswant Singh as

PW-9, Darshan Kumar Verma as PW-10. Thereafter, the evidence of the

prosecution was closed by order.

                                2 of 5

 CRR-3307-2013(O&M)                                               ::3::

5. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting

the entire incriminating circumstances/evidence appearing against them

which they denied being incorrect and pleaded that they were falsely

implicated. The accused examined no witness. They, however, tendered a

certified copy of challan form under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as Ex. D1 and closed

their defence evidence.

6. Based on the evidence led and the record exhibited, the

petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Amloh as under:-

Name of       Offences U/s     Sentence           Fine        In default of
convict                        awarded            imposed     payment of fine
Avtar    323 IPC read          RI for 1 year
Mohammad with Section
         34 IPC
              325 IPC read     RI for 1 year      Rs.1000/-   RI for 01 month
              with Section
              34 IPC
Chhota        323 IPC read     RI for 1 year
Singh @       with Section
Billu         34 IPC
              325 IPC read     RI for 1 year      Rs.1000/-   RI for 01 month
              with Section
              34 IPC

7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the

Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which came to

be dismissed on 09.10.2013.

8. After the appeal had been dismissed, the present revision petition

under Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners before this

Court.

                               3 of 5

 CRR-3307-2013(O&M)                                                  ::4::

9. During the pendency of the present petition, a compromise dated

29.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) was effected between the petitioners and

respondent No.2-complainant.

10. In terms of Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 325

IPC can be compounded with the permission of the Court by the person to

whom hurt is caused. In the present case, the complainant has effected a

settlement and the same is on record as Annexure P-1. He has appeared in

Court today and has endorsed the said settlement as well.

11. A perusal of Section 320(6) Cr.P.C. would show that the High

Court or the Court of Session acting in the exercise of its power of revision

under Section 401 Cr.P.C. may allow any person to compound an offence

which such person is competent to compound under this Section. Section

320(8) Cr.P.C. states that the effect of the composition of an offence is that the

accused is to be acquitted. A combined reading of Section 320(2) Cr.P.C.,

Section 320(6) Cr.P.C. and Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. leave no doubt that an

offence under Section 325 IPC can be compounded at the instance of the

person to whom hurt is caused, with the permission of the Court at the

revisional stage and the effect of such composition is that the accused is to be

acquitted. The said proposition of law has been set down in 'P. Ramaswamy

Vs. State (U.T.) of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2013(3) RCR

(Criminal) 760', 'Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another,

2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 245' and Inderjit Singh Basarke Versus State of

Punjab and another, in CRR-1062-2019, decided on 07.03.2022.

12. In view of the afore-mentioned discussion, the settlement

effected between the parties and the provisions of law as enumerated

4 of 5

CRR-3307-2013(O&M) ::5::

hereinabove, the present petition is allowed. The judgment dated dated

09.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh

Sahib, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.2013 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh in FIR No.102 dated 30.12.2005 under Sections

323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC registered at Police Station Amloh, are

hereby set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed

against them.

CRM-44666-2013

Since the revision petition has been decided, no order needs to be

passed in this application (CRM-44666-2013) for suspension of sentence of

the petitioner.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

06.12.2022 sukhpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No

Whether reportable:- Yes/No

5 of 5