SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M.B. Shah and Ruma Pal, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No.1090 Of 2000. (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.3458 of 2000). D/d. 06.12.2000.

Bachhu Singh @ Surendra Babu & Ors. - Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. - Respondent

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 320 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 324, 149, 324, 149 and 148 - Compounding of offences - Accused/appellant convicted and sentenced under Sections 324/149, 323/149 and 148 Indian Penal Code - Incident took place in the year 1979 and at present the parties had cordial relations and settled the disputed - Sentence of the accused/appellants reduced to the period already undergone.

[Para 7]

JUDGMENT

M.B. Shah, J. - Application of injured witnesses is granted.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.2214 of 1980. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court partly allowed the appeals in respect of conviction and sentence under Sections 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (for short Indian Penal Code) and altered the same under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The High Court rejected the prayer for giving the benefit of probation on the ground that they have deliberately taken the law and order in their hands and had inflicted injuries to the complainant as well as shattered the entire management of the marriage of the nephew of the complainant which was to take place on the next date of the occurrence.

4. By the impugned order the High Court directed that accused Chhitarmal and Meghshyam will under one year RI under Section 147 Indian Penal Code and the appellants Rajendra Singh (since deceased), Bachhu Singh @ Surendra Babu and Tej Pal will undergo two years RI under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and also the accused- appellants will undergo two years RI under Section 324 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and six months RI under Section 323/149 Indian Penal Code respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. At the time of hearing of the matter learned counsel for the accused- appellants have produced on record the compromise between the parties i.e. compromise between the accused and the complainant party. In the affidavit filed by the injured witness it has been stated that the incident took place in the year of 1979 and at present there is no enmity amongst the complainant i.e. injured and the accused persons and the family members of both sides are having cordial relations and, therefore, it is prayed that they may be permitted to compound the offence.

6. Learned counsel for the accused have also pointed that all the accused-appellants have already undergone the sentence for more than three months of RI and at present they are in jail.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that incident took place in the year 1979 and at present parties are having cordial relations and have settled their dispute, in our view, this would be a fit case for reducing the period of sentence to the period already undergone and we order accordingly. This appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court imposing sentence is modified accordingly. The appellants, who are in jail, shall be released forthwith if they are not wanted in connection of any other case.

Appeal allowed .