Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1121 (PNJ)

Pardeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2002-10-23

JASBIR SINGH

body2002
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26.11.1988, vide which he was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 325/323 of Indian Penal Code, (in short IPC). 2. On the basis of FIR No. 541 dated 31.10.1987 appellant, alongwith one Suresh Kumar was put to trial for offences under Section 308/342/323/506/34 IPC. 3. It was the case of the prosecution that both of them had caused injuries to one Mr. Subash Chander complainant on 28.10.1987 at about 6.45 pm. Trial Court after appreciation of evidence, as led by the prosecution and also by the defence, acquitted Suresh Kumar. However, appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 325 of IPC and was ordered to undgero rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. He was also convicted and sentenced under Section 323 IPC and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, both the sentences were to run concurrently. 4. Mr.O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has addressed his arguments only regarding quntum of sentence. It has been stated that appellant was not a previous convicted and he was only 21 years old that the time when alleged occurrence took place. It is further stated that after alleged occurrence, he has not repeated the mistake again and through his counsel he assured this court that in future he will live like a disciplined citizen and will not commit any offence again. Shri Goyal has further stated that this appeal is pending for the last more than 14 year and in view of this fact, he be shown leniency and he prayed that he be released on probation. This prayer has vehemently been opposed by Ms. Geeta, Mathuria, AAG Haryana, counsel for the state. She stated that sentence awarded is in proportion to the offence committed by him. She prays that appeal be dismissed. 5. Admittedly, occurrence took place on 28.10.1987. Trial continued till 26.11.1988. This appeal is pending for the last more than 14 years. Sword of conviction was continuing hanging on the head of appellant. By not committing any offence again, he has proved that he has reformed himself and is now living in a very disciplined Manner. 6. 5. Admittedly, occurrence took place on 28.10.1987. Trial continued till 26.11.1988. This appeal is pending for the last more than 14 years. Sword of conviction was continuing hanging on the head of appellant. By not committing any offence again, he has proved that he has reformed himself and is now living in a very disciplined Manner. 6. Purpose of criminal law justice is not only to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform himself. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161 : [2002(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 7 (SC)] opined as under : "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes effecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempthas to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal 1998 SCR 587 : [1998(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 718 (SC)], their Lordships of Supreme Court. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 8 Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh 2002 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600 : [2002(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 484 (Pb. & Hry.)]. In that case, in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted, however, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. 9. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467 : [1997(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 75 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 10. Similarly, as Single Bench of this Court in a case titled as Behari Lal v. State of U.T. Chandigarh 2000 (1), All India Criminal Law Reporter 832, while deciding a matter for commission of an offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by taking a note of judgments of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia A.I.R. 1980 SC 360 and Brahm Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1988 (2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 899, reduced sentence of the accused therein to the one already undergone. 11. In this case also, same is the situation. Appellant was only 21 years of age. May be because of young age, he may have committed the offence, as alleged against him. In view of above mentioned facts, conviction is upheld, however sentence is suspended and he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Appellant was only 21 years of age. May be because of young age, he may have committed the offence, as alleged against him. In view of above mentioned facts, conviction is upheld, however sentence is suspended and he is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He shall file an undertaking before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, that during the period of one year he will live as a disciplined citizen and will not commit any offence again and in case of default, he shall be liable to undergo punishment/sentence, as awarded by the trial court. 12. With the above mentioned modifications, appeal is disposed of.