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
SignatureSingh,Not Verified armed with knife, are said to have attacked/inflicted MAHABIR SINGH
the complaint lodged by the complainant a case was registered
under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 324
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.
(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.”
(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.