Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veer Singh @ Beera vs State Of Haryana on 5 August, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. A. No. 356-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 5-8-2010
Veer Singh @ Beera ... Appellant
versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant
Mr. Rajeev Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J:
Custody certificate, produced in Court, is taken on record.
The present appellant Veer Singh @ Beera was tried by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, under Section 333/332/353 IPC on the allegation that on 18.10.1998, he had caused injuries to Om Parkash, complainant, when he(Om Parkash) requested him not to graze his sheep and goats in an area belonging to the Forest Department.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide the impugned judgment and order 9.1.2002 held him guilty under Section 333, 332, 353 IPC and convicted him accordingly. Under Section 333 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months; under Section 332 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under Section 353 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the appellant has not touched the case on merits and prays for only reduction of sentence of the Crl. A. No. 356-SB of 2002 -2- accused-appellant. The appellant is stated to have already undergone more than one year of actual sentence and has suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 12 years. His counsel has left him at the mercy of the Court. Counsel for the appellant, in all fairness, contends that the appellant is also ready to pay compensation as the Court may deem fit.
The argument has been scanned.
Keeping in view the fact that the appellant has suffered the agony of protracted trial for about 12 years and the sentence awarded to him under Section 333 IPC is on the higher side and he has left himself at the mercy of the Court and is also ready to pay compensation to the injured Om Parkash, the conviction of the appellant under Section 333, 332, 353 IPC stands maintained but the sentence awarded to him under Section 333 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone, however, subject to deposit of compensation of Rs.25,000/- within three months before the trial Court for being disbursed to the injured, Om Parkash, in addition to the fine already paid. In the event of failure on the part of appellant to pay the aforesaid compensation within the stipulated time, the present appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
Intimation be sent to the Registry after compliance of this order.
With the above modification/direction, the appeal stands disposed of.
August 5, 2010 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE