Baldev Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition has been directed against the judgment dated 09.12.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence by the trial Court for offence punishable u/s 430 of the Indian Penal Code was dismissed and as a result, their conviction and sentence were affirmed.

On February 07, 2014, counsel for the petitioners made a statement giving up challenge to the findings of the Courts below in regard to conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offence.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that dispute between the parties has been settled by way of compromise entered between the petitioners and Kashmir Singh, the complainant, author of the FIR. The petitioners are in custody since disposal of their appeal by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and in this manner, they have suffered custody for a period of five months. No other criminal case has been registered against them, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone.

Counsel for the respondent State of Punjab has not disputed factual assertions, but opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence with the submissions that the petitioners have been found guilty of committing offence of demolishing a ''khal'' (watercourse), which was being used by a number of residents of the village, though the complaint was filed by Kashmir Singh, who is statedly to have entered into a compromise with the petitioners.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners with the lodging of FIR No. 1/2007. The petitioners have faced torment of criminal proceedings for the past 07 years. No other criminal case has been registered much less pending against them. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioners ever created any impediment in administration of criminal justice or delay in conclusion of proceedings is attributable to them. No doubt, as per the allegations, the watercourse statedly demolished by the petitioners was being used by the residents of the village but besides the complainant and two others the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, no one else appeared in the witness box to state that said watercourse was also being used by them. The complainant has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and his statement to that effect was recorded in the Court when otherwise, offence u/s 430 IPC is compoundable by the person to whom the loss or damage is caused.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances discussed hereinbefore, the petition stands disposed of with modification in the quantum of sentence and the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.