Manjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No(s). 1090 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.8293 of 2018)

MANJIT SINGH Appellant(s) VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated

02.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal NO.S-1964-SB of 2003 in and by

which the High Court has acquitted accused-Ranjit Singh from

the charges by giving him benefit of doubt but affirmed the

conviction of the appellant-Manjit Singh by the Trial Court and

the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. The High Court

has also enhanced the fine amount from Rs.1,000 to Rs.50,000/-

with a direction to pay the same to the complainant-Hardip

Singh as compensation.

3. Case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2001 at about

05:30 p.m. when complainant-Hardip Singh (PW-1) was returning

to his village Baghiari from bus stop on his scooter,

appellant-accused, Manjit Singh, along with his brother Ranjit

Singh, armed with knife, are said to have attacked/inflicted Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2019.07.23

knife blows on the left and right thigh of the complainant.

16:55:06 IST Reason: On

the complaint lodged by the complainant a case was registered

under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 324 2

read with Section 34 I.P.C. After completion of the

investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused

for the aforesaid offences.

(4) Upon consideration of the evidence of the

complainant/injured person and other witnesses, the Trial Court

convicted the accused appellant-Manjit Singh and his brother-

Ranjit Singh under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced each of

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with

fine of Rs.1000/- each. For the offence punishable under

Section 324 I.P.C., they were sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years. The Trial Court acquitted the

accused-Davinder Singh giving him benefit of doubt. In appeal,

the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant and

also the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused-

Manjit Singh. The High Court, however, acquitted the accused-

Ranjit Singh by holding that the charges against him are not

proved beyond reasonable doubt. Being aggrieved, the

appellant-Manjit Singh has preferred this appeal.

(5) During pendency of the appeal, parties are said to have

compromised the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant-

accused and the complainant-Hardip Singh, represented by his

counsel Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, have filed affidavit dated

15th July, 2019 stating therein that the parties have

compromised the matter. The appellant-accused has also filed

the compromise deed dated 29th May, 2019 entered into between

the parties.

3

(6) Section 307 I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence. No

permission can be granted to record the compromise between the

parties. In Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15

SCC 667, the Supreme Court of India has held that in a non-

compoundable offence the compromise entered into between the

parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may

keep in mind for considering the quantum of sentence. In Paras

(13) and (14) of the judgment in Ishwar Singh (supra) this

Court has held as under:

“13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC

255, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and

Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671, this Court,

while taking into account the fact of compromise between

the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-

accused to already undergone, though the offences were not

compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh

Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp. SCC 681 such

offence was ordered to be compounded.

14. In our considered opinion, it would not be

appropriate to order compounding of an offence not

compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside

statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited

submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

deserves consideration that while imposing substantive

sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is

indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in

mind.” 4

(7) As noted earlier, in the present case the appellant-

accused, Manjit Singh, has been sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for five years. The appellant is said to have

served seventeen months of imprisonment. Taking note of the

compromise entered into between the parties and considering the

relationship of the parties and the facts and circumstances of

the case and also the sentence undergone by the appellant-

accused, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the

appellant under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. is reduced from

five years/two years to the period already undergone by him.

The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith unless his

presence is required in any other case. In view of the

compromise entered into between the parties, the fine amount of

Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the appellant is set aside. If the

said fine amount has already been paid, the same shall be

refunded to the appellant-Manjit Singh.

(8) The appeal is partly allowed.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) NEW DELHI, JULY 22, 2019.