Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roop Chand vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 20 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRR No.1547 of 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1547 of 2011
Date of Decision:-20.9.2012
Roop Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, complainant Sukhdev Chand son of Didar Chand respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") instituted a private complaint against petitioner Roop Chand son of Khazan Chand and his co-convict Piara Lal son of Inder Ram, for having committed the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471/34 and 120-B IPC.
2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court convicted & sentenced the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each, to pay a fine of `1000/- each or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of CRR No.1547 of 2011 (O&M) -2- two months each for the commission of offence punishable under section 467 read with section 120-B IPC; to undergo RI for a period of one year, to pay a fine of ` 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each under section 468 read with section 120-B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of ` 500/- each or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each u/s 471 read with section 120-B IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.7.2008.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence, both the convicts filed the appeal. Although the appellate Court has accepted the appeal filed by Piara Lal convict, but dismissed the appeal of petitioner-convict, by means of impugned judgment dated 26.5.2011.
4. The petitioner-convict still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence of the Courts below, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC.
5. During the course of preliminary bearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (L.N.Mittal, J.) affirmed the conviction of petitioner- convict and issued notice to the complainant qua quantum of sentence only, by way of order dated 21.7.2011, the operative part of which is as under:-
CRR No.1547 of 2011 (O&M) -3-
"For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly the conviction is upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also prayed for reduction in sentence. The suit was filed in the year 1995 and decided in the year 1997. The criminal complaint was instituted on 07.02.2002. Keeping in view these circumstances, let notice of motion be issued to complainant-respondent No.2 only, qua quantum of sentence only."
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner-convict deserves to be reduced for the following reasons.
7. As is clear that the petitioner-convict was convicted on the complaint instituted by the complainant on 7.2.2002. In this manner, he has suffered the pangs and agony of protracted trial, appeal and revision for the last about 10¾ years. He is an old and poor person. He is only bread winner of his family. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The alleged suit was filed in the year 1995 and decided in the year 1997. He is ready to pay the adequate compensation to the victim.
8. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing out of the record, as indicated here-in-above, to me, it will be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the maximum sentence of imprisonment of three years imposed on the petitioner-convict by the Courts below, is reduced to the period of one year and six months, subject to the payment of the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the victim within a period of two months from today. CRR No.1547 of 2011 (O&M) -4-
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-convict is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the conviction & sentence of fine imposed on him are hereby maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment of three years is reduced to one year and six months, subject to the payment of compensation of ` 10,000/- to the victim within a period of two months from today. Accordingly, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the manner depicted here-in-before.
10. Needless to mention that necessary consequences and compliance will naturally follow accordingly.
20.9.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No