Uttarakhand High Court
Amar Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Recall Application No. 3130 of 2023
And
Compounding Application No. 3131 of 2023
In
Criminal Revision No. 164 of 2009
Amar Singh and another .......Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the revisionists through
video conferencing.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State through video
conferencing with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Brief Holder
for the State.
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Instant revision has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 20.09.2007, passed in Case
No.1758 of 2006, State vs. Amar Singh and another, by the
court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar
("the case"), by it, the revisionists were convicted and
sentenced under Sections 326 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The challenge has also been made to the
judgment and order dated 30.09.2009, passed in Criminal
Appeal no.67 of 2007, Amar Singh and another vs. State of
Uttarakhand, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/1st
Fast Track Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar. This order
has upheld the order dated 20.09.2007, passed in the case.
3. Initially this Court had held that the prosecution
has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt;
there is no error, illegality and propriety in the judgments
and orders and the revision was accordingly dismissed on
06.06.2022. It may be noted that at the time of hearing on
06.06.2022, the revisionists were not appeared, they were
not heard. The order dated 06.06.2022 was challenged by
the revisionists in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 9471 of
2022, Amar Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand
("SLP (Cri."), which was withdrawn with the liberty to move
compounding application before this Court. The order dated
17.10.2022, passed in SLP (Cri.) is as follows:-
"1. After arguing the cause for some time,
learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners seeking permission to
withdraw the instant petition, with liberty to
approach the High Court for compounding
of the offence on the premise that the
parties have amicably resolved their
disputes and want to live their disputes and
want to live a peaceful life as neighbors.
2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly,
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as
aforementioned."
4. Thereafter, the revisionists filed a recall
application so that compounding application may be
decided. Keeping in view the liberty that was granted to the
revisionists by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court
allowed the recall application. On 11.08.2022, the Court
proceeded to decide the compounding application, but the
informant and the son of the injured were not present on
that date. Both the revisionists have joined the proceedings
on 11.08.2022 and have verified the contents of the
compromise.
5. Today, Smt. Kashmiri Devi, the informant and
Jagdeep Singh son of the injured, both have joined the
proceedings through video conferencing duly identified by
their counsel Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt. It is admitted that injured
Jogender Singh has already died. Both the informant as
well as the son of the injured has verified the compromise.
They would submit that they have settled the dispute and
they do not want to proceed with the matter.
6. The parties have compounded the offence. What
would be its effect?
7. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit
that both the revisionists are unwell. The revisionist no.1
Amar Singh is 75 years of age. He is suffering with various
ailments. The revisionist no.2 Manjeet Singh is though 49
years of age, but he is unwell, HIV positive and partially
paralytic also. They have been in jail for more than a year
now. Therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period
which they have already undergone based on the
compounding between the parties. He would submit that, in
fact, the incident took place some times in the year 1996.
8. Learned counsel for the informant as well as the
son of the injured does not dispute the factual position as
submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists. He
would submit that the parties have settled the dispute. They
are neighbors. It has been a old dispute.
9. Even after post conviction, the compounding of
offences may be entertained by this Court, in view of the
judgment in the case of Ramgopal and another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834.
10. In the case of Ramgopal (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has laid down the factors that should
considered while compounding application is considered.
11. Learned State counsel under instructions would
submit that both the revisionists are unwell. He admits
about the age of the revisionists and ailment of both of them
as stated by learned counsel for the revisionists.
12. A few facts are necessary to be appreciated. They
are as follows:-
(i) The incident took place on 03.01.1996.
(ii) Parties are neighbors.
(ii) There was no serious dispute between the
parties.
(iv) The revisionist no.1 Amar Singh is 75 years
of age now. He is unwell.
(v) The revisionist no.2 Manjeet Singh is unwell
and he is partly paralytic also.
13. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit
that till 09.08.2023, the revisionist no.1 Amar Singh had
already undergone the sentence of 1 years 4 month and 19
days and till that date, the revisionist no.2 Manjeet Singh
had undergone sentence 1 year 4 months and 22 days.
Both the revisionists have been convicted under Sections
326 read with 34 IPC with a sentence of three years
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-.
14. Having considered the entirety of fact,
particularly the age and ailment of the revisionists as well
as the fact that the parties have entered into the
compromise and other attending factors, this Court is of the
view that the interest of justice would be served if the
sentence imposed on the revisionists is reduced to the
period, which they have already undergone.
15. The revision is partly allowed.
16. The sentence imposed upon the revisionists is
reduced to the period which they have already undergone in
this case.
17. The revisionists are in custody. Let they be
released forthwith, if they are not wanted in any other case.
18. The compounding application stands disposed of
accordingly.
19. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded
immediately to the court as well as to the jail concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.08.2023
Jitendra
