H.S.BHALLA,J - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.7.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby he convicted the appellant under Sections 307/326/324 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default, thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. All the substantive sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant, at the very out-set has contended that injured Malook Singh and the appellant are real brothers with each other. A case under Sections 307/326 and 324 was registered against the appellant at the instance of injured Malook Singh. Learned counsel appearing for the parties further submits that a compromise has been effected between both the brothers with the intervention of the relatives of both the parties. Malook Singh, injured, who is present in Court, states that he is ready and willing to compromise the matter with his brother (appellant herein), but he prays that a reasonable amount of compensation be awarded to him for having caused injuries to him. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to pay the compensation to his brother Malook Singh on account of the pecuniary loss suffered by him during this scuffle. The statement of Malook Singh, in this regard, is recorded to the effect, which runs as under :- "I have compromised the matter with my brother Santokh Singh. I feel satisfied in case he pays a sum of Rs. 85,000/- as compensation for having caused injuries to me. I have spent a lot of money on my treatment and in case, he pays the above said amount within a period of three months, then in that event, I would have no grudge against him and since he is my real brother, a lenient view in the matter of sentence be taken against him. The aforesaid amount be paid to me by way of bank draft, which is to be drawn in my name and the same be handed over to Shri M.S. Bedi, counsel for the complainant, to be further transmitted to me." I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties coupled with the statement made by Malook Singh complainant, as quoted above. I have also got satisfied myself after questioning the complainant as to the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Complainant has frankly admitted that he has compromised the matter with the appellant and he has no grudge against his brother and further prays that a lenient view in the matter of sentence be taken against the appellant.
(3.) RECORD spells out that the impugned judgment had been passed keeping in view the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed. The complainant, who got the case registered against the appellant, is his real brother. The complainant, as per his statement, referred to above, has now compromised the matter with his brother Santokh Singh. Record further spells out that the case was registered in the year 1992. Appellant was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 30.7.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before this Court in the year 1994, which remained pending for more than 13 years and since then, he has been facing mental agony on account of the pendency of the appeal and in such like circumstances, in my considered view, no useful purpose would be served, except for creating disturbance in the peaceful marital life being led by him, in case the appellant is sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court after a period of more than 13 years.;