In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, the High Court’s decision to affirm the conviction and enhance the fine amount in a case involving Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh has been upheld. The incident, which took place on 04.06.2001, resulted in a legal battle that has now been brought to a conclusion. Stay tuned to learn more about the details and implications of this judgement.
Facts
- The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant-Manjit Singh.
- The High Court acquitted the accused-Ranjit Singh due to lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
- The appellant-Manjit Singh has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the decision.
- The High Court also enhanced the fine amount for Manjit Singh from Rs.1,000 to Rs.50,000.
- The incident took place on 04.06.2001 at about 05:30 p.m.
- While returning to his village from the bus stop, the complainant, Hardip Singh, was attacked by the appellant-accused, Manjit Singh, and his brother Ranjit Singh with a knife.
- The attack resulted in knife blows on the left and right thigh of the complainant.
- During the appeal, it was reported that the parties had reached a compromise regarding the matter.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the appellant-accused filed an affidavit dated 15 July, 2019.
- The complainant, Hardip Singh, was represented by his counsel Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate.
- The affidavit stated certain facts and submissions relevant to the case.
- Both parties presented their respective arguments before the court.
- The affidavit played a significant role in the proceedings of the case.
- The parties have reached a compromise
- The compromise has resolved the matter in dispute
- The terms of the compromise are agreed upon by both parties
- There is no further contest between the parties regarding the resolved matter
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Analysis
- Both parties have entered into a compromise deed dated 29 May, 2019.
- The appellant-accused has filed the compromise deed as evidence.
- The court cannot grant permission to record the compromise between the parties.
- Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is a non-compoundable offence.
- This means that the offence cannot be settled between the parties involved outside of court.
- The seriousness of the offence is highlighted by its non-compoundable nature, indicating that it is a grave crime under the law.
- This section deals with the offence of attempt to murder, making it a crucial provision in the criminal justice system.
- In Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp. SCC 681, an offence was ordered to be compounded.
- 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, the Court reduced the sentence to already undergone considering the fact of compromise even for non-compoundable offences.
- In Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667, the compromise between the parties in a non-compoundable offence was considered a relevant circumstance for sentencing.
- The fact of compromise between parties can be a relevant circumstance for the court to consider while imposing substantive sentence.
- The appellant-accused, Manjit Singh, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years.
- The appellant has already served seventeen months of imprisonment.
- Due to the compromise between the parties, the relationship of the parties, and the facts of the case, the sentence imposed under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant-accused.
- The sentence of imprisonment is reduced from five years/two years to the period already served by the appellant.
Also Read: Compromise Reached: Reddy Satyanarayana vs Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao
Decision
- The appellant’s fine amount of Rs.50,000/- is set aside due to a compromise between the parties.
- If the fine amount has already been paid, it shall be refunded to the appellant, Manjit Singh.
- The appeal is partly allowed, and the appellant is ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Case Title: MANJIT SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001090-001090 / 2019
