NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J. - (1.) THE present order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.S -3315 -SB of 2013 (Sanjay & Ors. vs. State of Haryana) and Criminal Appeal No.S -3186 -SB of 2013 (Anil and Anr. vs. State of Haryana) since both the appeals are emanating from one and the same judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Both the appeals are being disposed of with the consent of all the concerns in view of the compromise effected between the appellants and the only injured, Ram Niwas, at the time of hearing of the Criminal Misc. applications for suspension of sentence of the convicts. Brief facts
(2.) THE appellants, Anil, Rajesh, Sanjay, Rama and Govinda as well as Ram Niwas (injured) are collateral who were working at the Saw Mill in District Sonepat. On 10.09.2010, there arose a dispute with regard to the share of the amount which they had earned from their labour and the appellants allegedly caused injuries by means of sticks on Ram Niwas at their village Kalayat The matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which, FIR No.141 dated 28.09.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 325, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Kalayat, District Kaithal. The appellants were arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Since the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, was triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the case was committed to the said court. The charges were framed. The prosecution witnesses were examined. The statements of the appellants were recorded and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court held that the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC, and ordered each of the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years besides the payment of fine of Rs. 3,000/ - each; and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three  months. Appellants Anil and Rajesh filed Criminal Appeal No.S -3186 -SB of 2013 while appellants Sanjay, Rama and Govinda preferred appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.S -3315 -SB of 2013. The appeals were admitted by this Court. During the pendency of the appeals, appellants Anil Rajesh and Rama moved different Criminal Misc. applications for suspension of their respective sentence. During hearing of the said criminal misc. applications for suspension of sentence, injured Ram Niwas along with Sh.B.D.Sharma, Advocate, appeared before the Court and submitted that he had effected a compromise with the appellants and had no objection if the appeals were disposed of by reducing their substantive sentences to the period already undergone by them. The statement of the injured was recorded on oath in vernacular in the presence of his counsel wherein, he specifically deposed that he had no objection if the sentences of the appellants were reduced to the period already undergone by them. He further stated that the appellants were his collaterals, therefore, he did not want any sort of compensation from them. Learned counsel representing the complainant and the learned counsel for the State also stated at Bar that they had no objection if the appeals are disposed of at this stage and the substantive sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the fine imposed by the learned trial court be not disturbed in view of the fact that the appellants did commit the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. To satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available on record has been re -scanned. The depositions of Ram Niwas, the doctor and the Investigating Officer clearly establish that the appellants did cause the injuries to Ram Niwas attracting the mischief of Section 307, IPC, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and as such, no interference is called for so far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned. However, there is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that both the private factions are collateral and due to intervention of the respectable and the elderly people of the society, they have sorted out their grievances and effected a compromise. Each of the appellant has undergone more than five months of the substantive sentence.;