Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Briefly, the facts of the case are:
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.03.1986, Rekh Singh (PW-1) was going to get his tubewell engine repaired. He was stopped by appellant Mohar Singh and three others. While other three caught hold of Rekh Singh, appellant gave lathi blows on his neck, back and legs, due to which the injured (Rekh Singh) fell down. Witnesses Man Singh (PW-2), Gyan Singh (PW-3), and Ram Roop (PW-4) witnessed the incident. They took the injured to hospital where Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (PW-5) recorded injuries suffered by Rekh Singh in Ex. P-7, and also advised X-ray. After X-ray of injury on head, suffered by the injured, fracture was detected and supplementary report Ex. P-5 was prepared. PW-7 Manvendra Singh, S.H.O., Karauli, received information from aforesaid hospital, and set the police machinery into action. Sub-inspector, Bharat Singh (PW-6) went to the hospital and recorded “Parcha Bayan” – Ex. P-1. On the basis of said memorandum, First Information Report No. 70/86 was registered at the Police Station. S.H.O, Manvendra Singh (PW-7) investigated the Crime, and after interrogating the witnesses, and inspection of site, filed charge-sheet against appellant Mohar Singh and three others, namely, Ram Kishan and his sons Meetha Lal and Bheem Singh, for their trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
Judgment:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that after the incident, the injured has entered into compromise, and he does not want to prosecute the appellant. In this connection, application for permission to file additional document (Annexures P-12, P-13) has been moved before us, enclosing Panchayatnama dated 05.02.2014, prepared by the villagers. Since the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence, as such, we reject the compromise filed by the appellant. Though the victim also appeared in person before us to corroborate that now he is no more interested to prosecute the appellant, but considering the nature of injuries and the nature of offence, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant, and affirmed by the High Court. However, taking note of above fact, we think it just to reduce the period of sentence of imprisonment to three years without interfering with the sentence of fine. This reduction in sentence shall not be treated precedent for sentencing in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Accordingly, conviction is not interfered with but the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The appeal stands disposed of. The appellant shall surrender before the court concerned to serve out the remaining unserved part of sentence, as modified by this Court.