Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madan Gir And Others vs State Of Punjab on 21 December, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 3452 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 21, 2012
Madan Gir and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondent.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. Challenge in the present criminal revision petition is to the judgment, dated 13.8.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 16.12.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo, whereby the petitioners were held guilty and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 149, IPC, arising out of FIR No. 10, dated 16.4.2005, registered at Police Station Kot Fatta, was dismissed.
CRR No. 3452 OF 2012 (O&M) 2
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.4.2005, at about 9.00 p.m., in the area of village Misar Khana, the petitioners, namely, Madan Gir, son of Swaran Gir; Lachhman Gir, son of Pritam Gir; and Swarn Gir, son of Madan Gir, along with their co-accused, armed with Gandasa etc., entered into the house of Manga Gir and caused injuries to him (Manga Gir) and Saroj Rani. On the basis of the statement suffered by Manga Gir, the present case was registered. After completing the formalities of the investigation, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate.
3. Finding a prima facie case, the petitioners and their co-accused were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 149, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined Manga Gir (complainant-injured) as PW-1; ASI Mohinder Singh as PW-2; Saroj Rani (injured) as PW-3; and Dr. Sushil Gupta as PW-4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of each accused were recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., in which they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led.
4. The learned Trial Court held the petitioners and their three more co-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 452 read with Section 149, IPC, and sentenced each one of them as under:
CRR No. 3452 OF 2012 (O&M) 3
Name of the convict Offence Sentence Fine In default (R.I.) (In `) (R.I.) Madan Gir (petitioner No. 1) 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 6 months 200/- 1 week 324, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 2 years 1,000/- 1 month Lachhman Gir (petitioner No. 2) 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 6 months 200/- 1 week CRR No. 3452 OF 2012 (O&M) 4 324/149, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 2 years 1,000/- 1 month Swaran Gir (petitioner No. 3) 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 6 months 200/- 1 week 324/149, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 2 years 1,000/- 1 month Janti Gir 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 6 months 200/- 1 week 324/149, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 2 years 1,000/- 1 month Amarjit Kaur 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 6 months 200/- 1 week 324/149, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 2 years 1,000/- 1 month Soni 148, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 6 months 200/- 1 week 324/149, IPC. 1 year 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 2 years 1,000/- 1 month However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners and their co- convicts filed Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2.3.2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The lower Appellate Court, out of the six appellants, accepted the appeal qua appellant Soni and acquitted her of the charges levelled against her, whereas appellants - Amarjit Kaur and Janti Gir were ordered to be released on probation on their furnishing bonds in the sum of `20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount with an CRR No. 3452 OF 2012 (O&M) 5 undertaking to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The amount of fine imposed upon them was converted into costs of the proceedings. However, the appeal qua the petitioners, Madan Gir, Lachhman Gir and Swaran Gir, was dismissed, but the sentences awarded by the learned Trial Court were modified as under:-
Name of the convict Offence Sentence Fine In default (R.I.) (In `) (R.I.) Madan Gir (petitioner No. 1) 148, IPC. 6 months 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 3 months 200/- 1 week 324, IPC. 6 months 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 9 months 1,000/- 1 month Lachhman Gir (petitioner No. 2) 148, IPC. 6 months 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 3 months 200/- 1 week 324/149, IPC. 6 months 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 9 months 1,000/- 1 month Swaran Gir (petitioner No. 3) 148, IPC. 6 months 500/- 15 days 323, IPC. 3 months 200/- 1 week 324/149, IPC. 6 months 500/- 15 days 452, IPC. 9 months 1,000/- 1 month All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
6. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the petitioners have filed the present criminal revision petition challenging the judgments of the Courts below.
7. On 30.11.2012, when the criminal revision petition came up for hearing before this Court, at that stage, the learned CRR No. 3452 OF 2012 (O&M) 6 counsel for the petitioners proposed not to challenge the verdict of conviction on merits. However, he submitted that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners was on higher side. Therefore, notice was issued to the respondent State for consideration of the quantum of sentence only.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 had also lodged a cross-case under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 325 read with Section 149, IPC, against the complainant side of this case, as petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had received as much as 9 and 6 injuries, respectively, at the hands of the complainant side of the present case. The present case was registered at the behest of Manga Gir. The learned Trial Court held the petitioners aggressors and acquitted the complainant side of this Court. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 is aged about 62 years, petitioner No. 2 about 32 years and petitioner No. 3 is aged about 28 years and they are thickly related with the complainant side. He further submitted that the petitioners were the first offenders and all the three petitioners were sole bread winners for their respective families. He also submitted that the petitioners were doing the labour work of bore-well fittings. He further submitted that the petitioners had undergone more than four months of their substantive sentence, therefore, their respective sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone.
CRR No. 3452 OF 2012 (O&M) 7
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners had already been dealt with leniently by the learned Courts below, therefore, there is no scope for further reduction of their sentence.
10. Heard.
11. Though the petitioners have opted not to challenge their conviction recorded by the learned Courts below, yet to satisfy the conscience of this Court, I have re-appraised the material available on record and find that both the Courts below have rightly returned the verdict of guilt against the petitioners and their co-accused. However, there is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sentence awarded to the petitioners is on higher side. While assessing the sentence, the following points are being taken into consideration:
i. The petitioners are first offenders; ii. It is a case of version and cross-version; iii. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 had received 9 and 6
injuries respectively;
iv. The petitioners are facing the agony of trial and appeal for the last more than 7 years; v. The petitioners are doing the labour work of bore-well fittings;
vi. The petitioners are the sole bread winners for their respective families;CRR No. 3452 OF 2012 (O&M) 8
vii. During pendency of the trial and the appeal, the petitioners were on bail, but they did not misuse the said concession;
viii. The affidavits of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda, which were produced by the learned counsel for the State, revealed that the petitioners had undergone incarceration for 4 months as on 13.12.2012;
ix. The above said affidavits further revealed that none of the petitioner was required or involved in any other case; and x. The affidavits further revealed that the petitioners were extended remission of 12 days by the jail authorities. This fact shows that the petitioners were maintaining good behaviour in the jail.
12. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the offences for which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced, and the period of incarceration suffered by each of the petitioners, i.e. approximately 4½ months, some benefit can be extended to the petitioners. Accordingly, the substantive sentences of the petitioners are reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed upon each of the petitioners is enhanced to `10,000/- (`10,000/- x 3 = `30,000/-), which would be inclusive of the fine imposed by the learned Courts below. The petitioners shall deposit the enhanced amount CRR No. 3452 OF 2012 (O&M) 9 of fine with the learned Trial Court within one month of their release from the jail. In default of payment of fine, the sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, shall enure. The aforementioned amount of the fine upon realization shall be paid to the injured persons of this case in equal proportion by the learned Trial Court after issuing notice to them. The petitioners be released immediately if not required in any other case.
13. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the present criminal revision petition is disposed of.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
December 21, 2012 JUDGE
Pkapoor