Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagsir Singh And Anr. vs State Of Haryana on 22 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2004)DMC538
Author: V.M. Jain
Bench: V.M. Jain
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.12.1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, convicting the accused-appellants under Sections 498A and 306, IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R1 for two years under Section 306, IPC and sentencing them to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months under Section 498A, IPC and further directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellants at the outset submitted before me that he is not challenging the conviction of the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A, IPC and shall argue only on the question of sentence.
3. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and after perusing the record, in my opinion, the learned Counsel for the accused appellants has rightly not challenged the conviction of the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, in view of the evidence led by the prosecution. Accordingly, I affirm the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 306 and 498A, IPC.
Coming on the question of sentence, learned Counsel for the accused-appellants has submitted before me that the occurrence in this case had taken place on 9.12.1989. The accused-appellants were arrested on 15.12.1989 and had remained in custody throughout during trial and were released on bail in pursuance of the order dated 23.1.1991 passed by this Court during the pendency of the appeal and in this manner, the accused-appellants have remained in custody for more than one year and one month. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by he Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Mohd. Hoshan, A.P. and Anr. v. State of A.P., 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1765.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. As referred to above, the occurrence had taken place on 9.12.1989 and the accused-appellants were arrested in this case on 15.12.1989. They remained in custody throughout during trial and after conviction they were released on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.1.1991, during the pendency of the present appeal. In this manner, the accused-appellants have already undergone more than one year and one month of actual sentence. In 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1765 (supra), after upholding the conviction of the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 306/498A, IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reduced the sentence awarded to the husband of the deceaed and mother-in-law of the deceased to the period already undergone by them after noticing that both the accused-appellants suffered imprisonment for about two months and that the occurrence took place on 9.3.1988 and both the appellants were on bail and it may not be appropriate to send them to jail again.
In view of the above the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Except the modification on the question of sentence, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.