Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 660 (PNJ)

Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-05-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Sajjan Singh son of Teja singh and Kartar Singh son of Major Singh, the petitioners herein; were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sultanpur Lodhi on 6.5.1988 and sentenced them as under :- Sajjan Singh Under Section 326/34 Indian Penal Code RI for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100- and in default of payment of fine to further under go RI for one month. Under Section 325 Indian Penal Code RI for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. Kartar Singh Under Section 326 Indian Penal Code substantive RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for. Under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Both the petitioners thereafter, filed appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and their appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 6.4.1989 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that Niranjan Singh son of Kundan Singh was injured on 26.2.1986 at about 8 P.M. by both the petitioners. Sajjan Singh petitioner was armed with a dang and Kartar Singh petitioner was armed with a gandasi. Sajjan Singh raised a lalkara and consequently Kartar Singh allegedly gave a gandasi blow on the nose of Niranjan Singh. Sajjan Singh also gave a dang blow which hit on the nose of Niranjan Singh. Sajjan Singh gave other dang blows to Niranjan Singh which hit him on his right cheek, teeth and right knee. The injuries attributed to Kartar Singh on the nose of Niranjan Singh were declared as grievous and for this reason Section 326 Indian Penal Code was added. 3. I have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Gautam Dutt, learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 4. 3. I have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Gautam Dutt, learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly conceded that he does not want to assail the impugned judgments on merits and instead prays for concession of reduction of sentence. He contends that the present occurrence relates to the year 1986. He further contends that Kartar Singh was of the age of 23 years while Sajjan Singh was of the age of 40 years at the time of occurrence and that they have already faced the agony of protracted trial of about 17 years by now and in between also no incident has ever taken place between both the sides. He further contends that during trial the petitioners remained in custody for about one month and after their appeal was dismissed on 6.4.1989, they were taken in custody and the substantive sentence of both the petitioners was suspended on 28.4.1989. Thus, the total period comes to about 45 days. The learned counsel for the petitioners thus, prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone by them. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in and State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh, 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 778 and Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 328 5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel submits that the petitioners do not deserves any leniency towards the quantum of sentence as both had attacked Niranjan Singh and caused him grievous and simple injuries with gandasi and dang. 6. So far as the disposal of the present petition on merits is concerned, although the impugned judgments of both the Courts below have not been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners yet I have minutely scanned both the judgments and am of the considered view that the petitioners have been rightly convicted. There is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity on any count in both the impugned judgments which may suggest interference by this Court. 7. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity on any count in both the impugned judgments which may suggest interference by this Court. 7. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The present case relates to the year 1986. The record reveals that Niranjan Singh has received as many as five injuries but injury No. 1 which is attributed to Kartar Singh has attracted Section 326 Indian Penal Code. The other injury which is on the nose is attributed to Sajjan Singh and this has attracted Section 325 Indian Penal Code. Both the petitioners have already faced the agony of protracted trial of about 17 years. As stated by the learned State Counsel, both the petitioners had already undergone more than one and a half month. The judgments State of Punjab v. Harnek Singh (supra) and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners squarely cover the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration on all the aspected of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. It is ordered accordingly. 9. However, the fine imposed upon both the petitioners under Sections 326/325 Indian Penal Code substantively of Rs. 100/- is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each. The petitioners shall deposit the fine before the trial Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo RI for four months. In case the fine is deposited, the same shall be disbursed to Niranjan Singh injured at once by the trial Court. So far as fine under Sections 326/34 and 325/34 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it would remain the same. With the modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated above, the present revision petition is dismissed. Let intimation of the result be informed to the trial Court. Revision dismissed.