Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 July, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. 19853 of 2012 in/and
Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.7.2012
Jeet Singh
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Assistant A.G., Punjab
***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
The instant petition is directed against the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence, thereby convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), awarding him the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. Besides this, the petitioner-Jeet Singh was also convicted for the offence under Section 323 and 149 IPC alongwith his other co-accused.
Succinctly put, the facts of the case necessary for deciding the short issue involved in the present petition, is that Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 2 Kaushalya Bai wife of Kashmir Singh, resident of village Mohkam Arian, stated before the police that she was member panchayat of the village. On 31.12.1999 at about 5/5:30 p.m., panchayat of the village was raising level of the village Phirni and at that time, she was also accompanying Sarpanch Paramjit Singh. Ex-Sarpanch Harbans Singh and Ashwani Kumar were also present. When earth was being put on the passage near the Haveli of Arror Singh, he raised objection to the same and a dispute arose between Ashwani Kumar and Aroor Singh. The complainant intervened and tried to rescue Ashwani Kmar. Upon this, Aroor Singh raised lalkara that she (complainant) be taught a lesson to save Ashwani Kumar and also for putting the earth. Then, Jeet Singh armed with Kapa, Piaro Bai wife of Aroor Singh armed with wooden thapa, Chhinder Singh son of Jeet Singh armed with dang and Gurdeep Singh son of Aroor Singh empty handed came at the spot. Immediately after reaching at the spot, Gurdeep Singh attacked the complainant and torn her clothes to insult her. Jeet Singh gave a kapa blow which hit on the nose of complainant and Chhinder Singh gave a dang blow. Piaro Bai gave a wooden thapa blow on the head of the complainant, who fell down and Surjito Bai wife of Shingara Singh, immediately ran towards the complainant to save her from the clutches of the accused.
Then, Karnail Singh son of Aroor Singh armed with dang and Santo Bai wife of Karnail Singh armed with a danda came at the spot. Karnail Singh gave a dang blow, which hit Surjito Bai on the left side of her head. Santo Bai gave a danda blow upon the nose of Surjito Bai. Complainant and Surjito Bai raised an alarm and on Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 3 hearing the same, Paramjit Singh-Sarpanch etc. came there and then the accused persons ran away from the sport with their respective weapons. Puran Singh, nephew of the complainant, who also came at the spot, took both the injured to Civil Hospital, where they were medico legally examined. Motive for causing injuries was that the panchayat was raising level of passage and Aroor Singh claimed that his wall was damaged, while doing so.
On inquiry made by Inspector Karamjit Singh, occurrence was found to be genuine and then FIR under Sections 354, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. ASI Harcharan Singh visited the spot and prepared rough site plan. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. On receiving the X-ray report, offence under Section 326 IPC was added. Accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.PC. was presented to the learned court of Illaqa Magistrate. Having found a prima facie case, the accused were charge sheeted under Sections 326, 323, 352, 148 read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. With a view to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 5 PWs, besides placing on record the documentary evidence.
After the prosecution evidence was closed, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded to be innocent and claimed false implication. The accused- petitioner (Jeet Singh) took the defence that complainant party caused grievous injuries to Piaro Bai and Sheelo Bai. In order to save themselves, they got registered the present false case against Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 4 him and others. Accused also led defence evidence and examined Gurdeep Singh-Sarpanch as DW-1. Baljeet Singh was examined as DW-2, who was member panchayat.
After going through the evidence available on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court acquitted Aroor Singh, Piaro Bai, Chhinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh holding that there was no incriminating evidence against them. However, accused-Jeet Singh was convicted under Sections 326, 323, 149 IPC, whereas his co-accused Karnail Singh and Santo Bai were held guilty under Sections 326, 148, 323, 149 and were sentenced, accordingly.
Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.11.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad, District Ferozepur, convicts namely Jeet Singh-petitioner herein, Karnail Singh and Santo Bai filed their appeals before the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Ferozepur. Vide impugned judgment dated 18.1.2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur accepted the appeal preferred by Karnail Singh and Santo Bai. Both of them were acquitted of the charge framed against them. However, appeal qua Jeet Singh-petitioner was partly allowed. He was acquitted of the charges under Section 323, 148, 149 IPC and the sentence awarded to him for the offence under Section 326 IPC, was reduced from 2 years to 1 year rigorous imprisonment, without any change in the amount of fine.
Feeling aggrieved against the above said impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner has Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 5 approached this Court by way of these two criminal revision petitions. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that he does not intend to press this criminal revision petition regarding the conviction recorded by the learned courts below. He prays that the present revision petition may be considered only regarding quantum of sentence.
He further submitted that since the petitioner had been facing the agony of criminal trial for the last more than 12 years and he has already undergone the actual sentence for more than 7 months out of the total awarded sentence for 1 year, sentence of the petitioner may be ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for acceptance of the revision petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that sentence of the petitioner has already been adequately reduced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned judgment. The petitioner was not entitled for any further reduction in the sentence. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the criminal revision petition.
Having considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be adequately met, if the sentence of the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. I say so because of more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter. Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 6
Firstly, three generations of the petitioner were implicated in the present case. Petitioner himself alongwith his two brothers namely Gurdeep Singh and Karnail Singh. Father and mother of the petitioner and then Chhinder Singh son of the petitioner as well as Santo Bai wife of Karnail Singh. Out of the total seven accused noted above, four were acquitted by the learned trial court. On appeal, two more were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it is only the petitioner who has been convicted.
Secondly, the petitioner is about 60 years of age and is facing agony of criminal trial for more than 12 long years. Thirdly, in terms of the custody certificate dated 19.7.2012, filed by way of affidavit of Amarjit Singh Sandhu, Deputy Superintendent (Officiating Superintendent), Central Jail, Ferozepur, the petitioner has undergone the actual sentence for 6 months and 23 days as on 19.7.2012, out of the total sentence awarded to him for 1 year rigorous imprisonment. When the period of about 3 months earned by the petitioner by way of remission is added, the undergone period comes to about 10 months out of the total sentence for 1 year rigorous imprisonment.
The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan v. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" and "Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana, 1981 AIR (SC) 1723.
The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Soundarajan v. Seed Inspector, Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 7 Coimbatore and another (Supra)" are as under:-
"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment."
In "Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/ petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having Criminal Revision No. 998 of 2012 8 regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.
3.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this criminal revision petition is dismissed while upholding the conviction of the petitioner. However, the sentence of the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Resultantly, with the modification in the sentence, noted above, the instant criminal revision petition is disposed of, accordingly.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 25.7.2012.
Ak Sharma .