Beeram Parkash And Others vs State Of Punjab on 10 December, 2012

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Beeram Parkash And Others vs State Of Punjab on 10 December, 2012

Bench: K. C. Puri

CRR NO. 3421 OF 2012 (O&M)                          -1-



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                           CRR NO. 3421 OF 2012 (O&M)
                           DECIDED ON : 10.12.2012

Beeram Parkash and others
                                         ...Petitioners
                versus

State of Punjab
                                         ...Respondent

                     AND

                           CRR NO. 3422 OF 2012 (O&M)

Bal Ram and others
                                         ...Petitioners
                versus

State of Punjab
                                         ...Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI


Present : Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate,
          for the petitioners.

          Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, DAG, Punjab.


K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL)

Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of two revision petitions bearing Crl. Revision No. 3421 of 2012 titled as, "Beeram Parkash and others vs. State of Punjab" and Crl. Revision No. 3422 of 2012 titled as, "Bal Ram and others vs. State of Punjab", as the same have arisen out of the same FIR.

CRR NO. 3421 OF 2012 (O&M) -2-

All the accused now petitioners were sent to stand trial for an offence punishable under Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34 IPC in FIR No. 92 dated 23.06.1998 registered at Police Station Khuian Sarwar.

The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, convicted and sentenced all the accused as under :-

Brahm Parkash R.I for a period of two years and to pay fine u/s 326 IPC of Rs.2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I for a further period of one month.

Remaining accused
u/s 326 r.w.s 34 IPC                   -do-


All accused u/s 325    R.I for a period of one year and to pay fine
IPC r.w.s 34 IPC       of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine,

to undergo R.I for a further period of 15 days.

All accused u/s 324 R.I for a period of one year. r.w.s 34 IPC All accused u/s 323 R.I for a period of six months. r.w.s 34 IPC In cross version also, all the accused now petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under :-

Bal Ram u/s 326 IPC R.I for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I for a further period of one month.

 CRR NO. 3421 OF 2012 (O&M)                                -3-




Remaining accused
u/s 326 r.w.s 149 IPC                      -do-

All accused u/s 324 R.I for a period of one year and to pay fine r.w.s 149 IPC of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I for a further period of 15 days.

All accused u/s 323 R.I for a period of six months r.w.s 149 IPC All accused u/s 148 R.I for a period of one year IPC Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2009 passed by Shri Ashok Kapoor, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, both the set of accused/petitioners preferred two separate appeals.

The compromise was effected between the parties. However, since offence under Section 326 IPC was involved, the Appellate Court reduced the sentence by half qua all the sentences awarded to all the accused/ petitioners vide judgment dated 16.10.2012 passed by Shri Sumeet Malhotra, Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar and judgment dated 16.10.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, all CRR NO. 3421 OF 2012 (O&M) -4- the accused now petitioners have preferred two separate revision petitions.

Learned counsel for the parties have not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below but have submitted that the first Appellate Court has admitted the factum of compromise. Both the parties are near relatives and are neighbours. So, prayer has been made for reduction in sentence.

The compromise is already on record. The accused are in custody since 17.10.2012. The factum of compromise is a good ground for reduction in sentence. The ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of all the revisionists are reduced to the period already undergone by them. I order accordingly. However, each of the revisionist is ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. All the accused/petitioners be released forthwith on deposit of Rs.5000/- each as litigation expenses and if not required in any other case.

Both the revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

DECEMBER 10, 2012                                  (K. C. PURI)
shalini                                              JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court