Vinod Sharma vs State of NCT of Delhi

Aruna Suresh, J.—By this common order, I shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 520/2008 titled ''Vinod Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi'' and Criminal Appeal No. 527/2008 titled ''Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi'' as both the appeals have arisen out of the judgment of conviction dated 14.05.2008 and order on sentence dated 22.05.2008 of the trial court passed in Sessions case No. 91/07 whereby the appellants were convicted for having committed offences under Sections 147/148/454/511 read with Section 149 IPC, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, 353 read with Section 149 IPC, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 149 IPC and were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo six months R.I. for offence punishable u/s 307/149 IPC, and RI for one year for offence punishable u/s 454 read with Section 511/149 IPC with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default three months simple imprisonment and they were further sentenced to undergo RI for one year for offence punishable u/s 353/149 IPC and one year RI for offence punishable u/s 506/149 IPC and another sentence for one year RI for the offence punishable u/s 147 read with Section 148 IPC. Besides, the appellants were also sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable u/s 27 of the Arms Act and these sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also given to all the appellants.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Bharat Vidhu Pandey had purchased a plot No. K-2068, C.R. Park from one R.N. Ghosh on 4.9.2000 and on 12.10.2000 he took possession of the said plot from R.N. Ghosh and the tenant Vikesh Majithia by the orders of the court. Mr. B.V. Pandey had engaged the services of a guard to take care of the plot purchased by him. However, on 12.1.2001 a civil suit was filed by one Om Parkash Aggarwal claiming himself to be the owner and he also tried to take possession of the impugned plot. On 29.10.2001, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Civil Judge to inspect the plot. Mr. B.V. Pandey reached his plot at about 3.15 P.M. and his guards, namely, Anwar, Rakesh Yadav, Avdesh Singh Chauhan and Govind Singh were inside the plot. They were waiting for the Local Commissioner when three boys came in a white Maruti Zen and after getting down from the car, they started banging the door of the plot. Mr. B.V.Pandey enquired from those persons and also told them that he would call the police. The boys ran away. However, Mr. B.V. Pandey did make a call to the police and SI Arun Tyagi along with his staff reached the plot. On the same day at about 5.30 P.M. 8/9 persons came at the plot in a green colour Zen and white Zen and on motorcycle. Om Prakash (since acquitted) and Radhey Shyam were also amongst those 8/9 persons. Complainant was abused and dragged towards the road. They also threatened the guards to open the door or they would shoot them. Even the police officers present there, namely, Batti Lal and Ct. Kazormal tried to stop them and they were manhandled. One of those 8/9 persons started breaking open the door with hammer and chisel and complainant tried to get himself released and threatened those persons that he would call the police. On this, appellant Radhey Shyam asked one of the persons to shoot B.V.Pandey. One of the persons who was present there fired at B.V. Pandey who had been caught hold of by appellant Gajender Sharma. Unfortunately, the bullet hit on the foot of Gajender Sharma. Complainant managed to rescue himself and informed the police. On seeing the police, the person who had fired at the complainant and another person who was also present with him fled away in a white Zen car. The remaining six persons, namely, Surender, Satbir, Auranzeb, Vinod Sharma, Gajender Sharma and appellant Radhey Shyam were apprehended at the spot.

The learned trial court on the basis of prima facie evidence available on record was pleased to frame charges under Sections 147/148/454/511 read with Section 149 IPC, 307 read with Section 149 IPC, 353 read with Section 149 IPC, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 149 IPC against all the appellants. After completion of the trial and after offering opportunities to the appellants to be heard, the trial court convicted the appellants for the abovesaid offences and sentenced them as observed earlier.

During the pendency of the appeals, the appellants filed their respective applications seeking suspension of sentence and their release on bail till the pendency of the appeals. After consideration of the applications vide separate orders of different dates, the orders on sentence passed against them were suspended and they were released on bail till the pendency of the appeals. After they were released on bail, it seems the parties have reconciled their disputes and compounded the offences in terms contained in Deed of Settlement dated 25.09.2008. Consequently, applications being Crl.M.A. Nos. 12154/2008 and 12155/2008 respectively have been filed by the appellants u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for compounding of the offences.

Undisputedly, none of the offences for which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced are compoundable. At the stage of appeal when the FIR has culminated into conviction of the appellants, no compounding can be permitted for the offences which are otherwise non-compoundable. The applications, therefore, under the law are not entertain-able and deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.

However, in view of Badrilal v. State of M.P. 2005 SCC (Crl.) 1597 and keeping in mind the facts and the peculiar circumstances of the case when a joint compromise petition has been filed along with a compromise deed for recording of compromise, the court can take into consideration the effect of compromise while awarding sentence on the appellants.

It is also pertinent to mention here that all the other civil as well as criminal litigations inter se the part ies have been withdrawn or dismissed in view of the settlement. I am told that the civil suit filed by Om Prakash Aggarwal has also since been dismissed by the court.

Hence, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would suffice if the sentences imposed upon the appellants are reduced to the undergone period which they have already suffered. Hence, the order on sentence dated 22.05.2008 stands modified accordingly. The fine as imposed by the trial court on the appellants has already been deposited. However, appellants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House, New Delhi.

Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Registry is directed to place attested copy of the order in Criminal Appeal No. 527/2008 also.

Attested copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court, Superintendent Jail as well as to Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House, New Delhi for information.