Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Masih vs State Of Punjab on 4 July, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Revision No.3571 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.3571 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION: July 4,2013
Deepak Masih
.....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Aminder Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab.
DAYA CHAUDHARY,J.
The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 20.11.2009 under Sections 279,337,304-A IPC and was sentenced as under:
Sr. Offence Sentence Fine Default No. 1. 279 IPC RI for three Rs.500/- To further undergo SI months for 15 days. 2. 337 IPC RI for three Rs.500/- To further undergo SI months for 15 days 3. 304-A RI for two months Rs.1,000/- To further undergo SI IPC for 30 days.
Thereafter, judgment of the trial Court was upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur as appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Criminal Revision No.3571 of 2012 2
After loosing before both the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition to challenge his conviction and sentence.
While issuing notice of motion on 9.11.2012, judgment of the conviction was upheld and notice of motion was issued regarding quantum of sentence. The order dated 9.11.2012 is reproduced as under:
"Challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 06.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Dhuri, was dismissed.
Learned counsel fairly opts not to challenge the judgment of conviction. However, he submits that keeping in view of the totality of the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is on higher side.
Notice of motion with regard to quantum of sentence only, for 10.01.2013."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone actual sentence of more than ten months against total sentence of two years and he is facing agony of trial for the last more than seven years. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a youngman and he is only sole bread winner of his family and he is Criminal Revision No.3571 of 2012 3 having no criminal background and is first offender. Learned counsel also submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the custody period, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period but opposes the prayer of the petitioner.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgments of both the Courts below and other record on the file.
Admittedly, the petitioner was convicted under sections 279,337,304-A IPC and while issuing notice of motion, the conviction has already been upheld and notice of motion was issued regarding quantum of sentence only.
Keeping in view the circumstances and submissions as mentioned above and also the custody of more than ten months against total sentence of two years, it would be in the interest of justice to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone subject to payment of Rs.35,000/- as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased. The petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, but on deposit of compensation amount with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The period of sentence shall stand reduced upto actual release of the petitioner, as aforesaid. In case the Criminal Revision No.3571 of 2012 4 petitioner fails to deposit the amount of compensation, he shall undergo the remaining part of sentence.
With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of.
July 04,2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) KD JUDGE