Inderjeet v. State

2. Keeping in view that the victim was a minor son of the purio, with whom the settlement is sought to be arrived at, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to enhance the amount and make necessary submissions in this regard"' Thereafter, crl.Misc.Appl.No.7295 l2}ll was filed by the applicant/accused, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner and complainant have compromised the above matter and in fact' the petitioner had paid a sum of T.30,000/- to the father' sh'shyam Babu, of the victim. Vide order dated 24.05'2011, this court was of the view that the above amount is inadequate, thus the matter WaSadjournedto26.oT.20llforenhancementofthe comPensation. The Petitioner has father, Sh,ShYam Babu amount of T. 1,00,000/-. Thepetitionerhassoughtthebenigninterventionofthis court, hence, moved the instant application to record the compromise and the sentence of the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice as the petitioner is already in the judicial custody since 25'02'2011' Today,Sh.ShyamBabuS/oofSh.RamBharoshLalhas appearedinperson'SIGirrajSinghlooftheaforesaidcasehas CRL.REV.P. ggl2ort Page[2] of 4 i further paid a sum of t'70,000/- to the and thus the petitioner has paid total \a identified Sh.Shayam Babu as father of the deceased, who has fairly conceded that he has already received T.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. It is not out of place to mention here that this Court subsequently asked Sh.Shyam Babu, father of the deceased' that does he feel that the petitioner has more capacity to pay the compensation? He replied in negative and further said that he is very poor man. Therefore, in the interest of justice, just to give the quietus and as guided by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Puttaswamv vs. 'State of Karnataka & Anr' Decided on 77.72.2008 in crt. Appeat No. 2075/2008 wherein the Apex court has observed as under:-,,g. What emerges from a|| these decisions is that even if an offenie is not compoundable within the scope of section 320 of code of criminal Procedure the court may, in view of the compromise arrived at betweentheparties,reducethesentenceimposed while maintaining the conviction. In the present case. the appellant hai been convicted under sections 279 and 304-A of the lndian Penal code and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine^of t[2],000/-. The sentence as far as conviction under Section 279l.P.C. is concerned has been set aside by the High court. what remains after the judgment of the High court is the conviction under sections 279 and 304-4 I'P.C' whereintheappe||antwassentencedtoundergosix months simpfb' imprisonment along with a fine of T.2,OO0/-.lnou.rview,thisisoneofthosecaseswhere instead of confining the appellant in prison, tl" interest of justice *llt oe better served if he is made tocompensatethefamilyofthe.deceasedon account of the loss suffered by them'",D CRL.REV.P. 99I2OLT (! ln view of the above judgement, while maintaining the petitioner's conviction under sections 279 and 304-A lPc and keeping in view the compensation of T.1,00,000/- already paid' during the pendency of the instant revision petition, I hereby modify the sentence awarded by the trial court and the appellate court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The Jail superintendant concerned is directed to release the petitioner/lnderjeet forthwith' copy of this order be sent to the Jail superintendant for compliance. Accordingly, crl.Rev.P. No.99 12011 is allowed as above' Crl.M.A.No.4860/2011andCr|'M.A.No.7295l20IIare disposed of accordinglY. No order as to costs. Crl. M.B. No'363/201L The application is disposed of as infructuous' SURESH KAIT (vAcl\TloN JUDGE),uNE 22,?OLL rb cRL.REV.P, 99l20rt