Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shishpal vs State Of Haryana on 9 August, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRA No.1500-SB of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRA No.1500-SB of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.8.2011
Shishpal
....... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Suneet Sangwan, Advocate for
Mr.J.S.Mehndiratta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
Appellant Shishpal along with other co-accused had faced the trial for an offence under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), 1860 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in FIR No.152 dated 26.6.2006 registered at Police Station City Jind.
Vide judgment dated 9.1.2008, the appellant along with co-accused were convicted for an offence under Section 399 and 402 IPC by the trial Court. Co-accused Ramesh and Balinder were also convicted qua commission of offence under Section 25 of the Act. Vide order dated 12.1.2008 appellant and other co-accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- each qua offence under Section 399 IPC. The appellant and other co-accused were further sentenced to CRA No.1500-SB of 2011 (O&M) 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- each qua offence under Section 402 IPC. Co-accused Ramesh and Balinder were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- each for offence under Section 25 of the Act. So far as the sentences awarded to accused Ramesh and Balinder are concerned, these were ordered to run concurrently but no order was made as to whether the sentences awarded to the appellant were to run concurrently or consecutively.
Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 399, 402 IPC but has submitted that the sentences awarded by the trial Court under Section 399, 402 IPC be ordered to run concurrently.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that both the sentences qua appellants were liable to run concurrently.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the sentences awarded to the appellant under Section 399, 402 IPC are liable to be ordered to run concurrently.
So far as accused Ramesh and Balinder are concerned, the said accused had been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 399, 402 IPC and Section 25 of the Act, whereas, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 399, 402 IPC. The sentences qua the said accused i.e. Ramesh and Balinder were ordered to run concurrently but the trial CRA No.1500-SB of 2011 (O&M) 3 Court has failed to order in the case of the appellant that the sentences awarded to him shall also run concurrently. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to order that the sentences awarded to the appellant under Sections 399 and 402 IPC should run concurrently.
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with modification in the order of sentence that the sentences awarded to the appellant under Section 399, 402 IPC shall run concurrently.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 09, 2011 anita