Crl.Appeal -s No. 954-sb of 2009 (Oandm) Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1067610
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-14-2013
AppellantCrl.Appeal -s No. 954-sb of 2009 (Oandm)
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl.appeal -s no.954-sb of 2009 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl.appeal -s no.954-sb of 2009 (o&m) date of decision:14. 3.2013 naresh kumar and others ......appellants versus state of haryana .......respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.kapil aggarwal, advocate,for the appellants. mr.gaurav dhir, dag, haryana. complainant shyam singh and his son ranjeet singh in person along with mr.jitender kaushik, advocate. **** sabina, j. appellants had faced trial for commission of offence punishable under sections 307/ 34/ 120-b of the indian penal code, 1860 (ipc for short) and section 25 of the arms act, 1959 (the act for short) in fir nos.36 dated 4.2.2006 and 79 dated 8.3.2006 registered at police station shahbad. trial court vide judgment/ order dated 24.3.2009/ 27.3.2009 convicted and sentenced the appellants qua commission of offence punishable under sections 307/ 34/ 120-b ipc and section 25 of the act. hence, the present appeal. learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant no.1 naresh kumar has died during the pendency of the appeal. accordingly, the proceedings qua appellant no.1 stand abated. crl.appeal -s no.954-sb of 2009 (o&m) 2 learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that it is a case of no injury and not during the pendency of the appeal, appellants no.2 and 3 and the complainant have amicably settled their dispute. learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of appellants no.2 and 3 under sections 307/ 34/ 120-b ipc and section 25 of the act but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of appellants no.2 and 3 be reduced to already undergone by them in view of the compromise effected between the parties. complainant shyam singh and his son ranjeet singh are present in person along with their counsel and have admitted the factum of compromise effected between the parties. they have also admitted the contents of the compromise deed (annexure a-1) and their affidavits (annexures a-2 and a-3) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application. they have further stated that they have no objection if the sentence qua imprisonment of appellant no.2 and 3 is reduced to already undergone by them. accordingly, the conviction of appellants no.2 and 3 under sections 307/ 34/ 120-b ipc and section 25 of the act is maintained. however, the sentence qua imprisonment of appellants no.2 and 3 is reduced to already undergone by them. the appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (sabina) judge march 14, 2013 anita
Judgment:

Crl.Appeal -S No.954-SB of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Appeal -S No.954-SB of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:

14. 3.2013 Naresh Kumar and others ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate,for the appellants.

Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.

Complainant Shyam Singh and his son Ranjeet Singh in person along with Mr.Jitender Kaushik, Advocate.

**** SABINA, J.

Appellants had faced trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/ 34/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act for short) in FIR Nos.36 dated 4.2.2006 and 79 dated 8.3.2006 registered at Police Station Shahbad.

Trial Court vide judgment/ order dated 24.3.2009/ 27.3.2009 convicted and sentenced the appellants qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/ 34/ 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Act.

Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant No.1 Naresh Kumar has died during the pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the proceedings qua appellant No.1 stand abated.

Crl.Appeal -S No.954-SB of 2009 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that it is a case of no injury and not during the pendency of the appeal, appellants No.2 and 3 and the complainant have amicably settled their dispute.

Learned counsel has not challenged the conviction of appellants No.2 and 3 under Sections 307/ 34/ 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Act but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of appellants No.2 and 3 be reduced to already undergone by them in view of the compromise effected between the parties.

Complainant Shyam Singh and his son Ranjeet Singh are present in person along with their counsel and have admitted the factum of compromise effected between the parties.

They have also admitted the contents of the compromise deed (Annexure A-1) and their affidavits (Annexures A-2 and A-3) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application.

They have further stated that they have no objection if the sentence qua imprisonment of appellant No.2 and 3 is reduced to already undergone by them.

Accordingly, the conviction of appellants No.2 and 3 under Sections 307/ 34/ 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Act is maintained.

However, the sentence qua imprisonment of appellants No.2 and 3 is reduced to already undergone by them.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(SABINA) JUDGE March 14, 2013 anita