Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sawaiya Ram And Another vs State Of Haryana on 16 March, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 584-SB of 2001
Date of decision : 16.03.2012
Sawaiya Ram and another .....Appellants
VERSUS
State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Surender Dhul, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 584-SB, 585-SB and 586-SB of 2001.
The appellants, Sawaiya Ram and Balwinder Singh, are father and son respectively and are in appeal before this Court to challenge their conviction for under Section 307 IPC. Both the appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years coupled with sum of ` 2,000/- fine each. Both the appellants also stand convicted for offence under Section 25, 54 and 59 Arms Act for which they have sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place in the year 1999. The appellants faced trial for nearly two years Criminal Appeal No. 584-SB of 2001 -2- and was convicted for this offence on 04.05.2001. The sentence was imposed on 07.05.2001. Thereafter, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
During the pendency of appeal, bail which was initially granted was also cancelled. The appellants, by now, have almost undergone sentence of 2½ years approximately. Counsel for the appellants further submits that this incident took place because of some enmity between the appellants and the complainant. They have now been living peacefully ever since they were dealt with and have been convicted. The enmity, which was there, has now been settled and both the appellants and the complainant are living peacefully in the same village.
Apart from their conviction for an offence under Sections 307 IPC etc., the appellants were also separately charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Investigating Officer had given evidence about the manner in which the recovery of arms was effected from the appellants on the basis of disclosure statement made by them. On the basis of evidence and the defence projected by the appellants, they were found guilty of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and thereafter, were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. As already noticed, the appellants have by now undergone a sentence of 2½ years approximately. The prayer of the appellants for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone has been pressed by counsel for the appellants, as is already noticed.
The appellants are agriculturists. The proceedings were Criminal Appeal No. 584-SB of 2001 -3- initiated against four accused, two out of which were acquitted by the trial Court. Referring to these facts and totality of the circumstances and the agony, which the appellants have faced till now for almost 13 years, counsel contends that some leniency may be shown to them. As per the counsel, the appellants have reformed otherwise and have continued to remain free from any controversy for this long period. Otherwise also, the appellant-Sawaiya Ram is now 74 years old. However, the appellant-Balwinder Singh is about 37 years.
Considering the age of appellant No. 1 and the fact that they are father and son and really are repentant, case for showing some leniency is made out. The appellants have also undergone substantial portion of sentence, as is already noticed. The counsel have also not pressed the appeal on merits and has only pleaded for leniency. Taking the entirety of the facts into consideration, the case for showing some leniency is made out. The sentence, as imposed on the appellants, is reduced to already undergone. The fine, however, shall stand enhanced to sum of ` 20,000/- against each. If the fine is not deposited, the sentence shall stand revived. Subject to above observations, the appeals are dismissed. The appellants would appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to deposit fine on or before 30.04.2012.
Since both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the appellants have already undergone the rigors of punishment of one year imposed in the case under the arms Act, no Criminal Appeal No. 584-SB of 2001 -4- further order needs to be passed in regard to the sentence. The conviction of the appellants, however, under the Arms Act is maintained.
Subject to the observations made above, the appeals are dismissed.
March 16, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE