Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 912 (PNJ)

Udho Ram v. State of Punjab

2003-07-09

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Udho Ram, Mohinder Pal, Jagiri Ram, Baldev Raj and Amrit Lal the appellants-herein stand convicted under Sections 451 and 436 Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide impugned judgment dated August 6, 1990 and have been sentences as under : U/S 451 Indian Penal Code RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months. U/S 436 Indian Penal Code RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for 3 months. 2. Out of the fine amount, if realised, Rs. 1250/- were directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant/Jeet Ram. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up in appeal before this Court. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27.7.1989 Jeet Ram complainant made a statement to the police. As per his statement, he was running a Karyana shop in a rented premises taken from Hardev Singh PW in village Nangal Shaheedan. On 26.7.1989 around 8-30 PM after closing his shop he had gone to ease himself and on way back, he was taking his meals when Mohinder Pal appellants knocked the door. Tarsem Kaur, wife of the complainant asked as to who was there. Then the appellant demanded cigarettes. She supplied him the same. Then the appellant caught hold of Tarsem Kaur from her arm and threw her away, telling that they would get the shop vacated. In the meantime the remaining appellants also arrived at the shop and all the them started throwing away the articles including the ready made garments from the shop and thereafter set ablazed the said garments. On an alarm being raised by the complainant and his family members, the appellants went away from the spot. The fire was extinguished. 5. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were challaned. Charge under Sections 451/436 Indian Penal Code was framed against them. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined Amarjit Singh PW1, Paramjit Singh PW2, Jeet Ram PW3, Tarsem Kaur PW4, Hardev Singh PW5, Shadi Lal Sarpanch PW6 and ASI Gurbanchan Singh PW7. 7. The fire was extinguished. 5. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were challaned. Charge under Sections 451/436 Indian Penal Code was framed against them. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined Amarjit Singh PW1, Paramjit Singh PW2, Jeet Ram PW3, Tarsem Kaur PW4, Hardev Singh PW5, Shadi Lal Sarpanch PW6 and ASI Gurbanchan Singh PW7. 7. The stand as emerges from the statements of the appellants under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is that since Udho Ram appellant contested that election against Shadi Lal Sarpanch, the latter got him falsely implicated in this case alongwith his co-appellants, who were his partymen. 8. In their defence, the appellants examined Amarjit Singh Ahlmad as DW1, Dev Raj as DW2 and Santa Singh as DW3. 9. After considering the entire evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced all the appellants, as indicated above. 10. I have heard Mr. Gautam Dutt, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. GS Hooda, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the entire evidence on record. 11. Mr. Dutt at the very outset has stated that he does not assail the impugned judgment of conviction. Instead he has prayed for reduction of sentence. On this count, he has submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 1989 and the appellants have suffered the agony of protracted trial for over 13 years. According to Mr. Dutt, the appellants are not the previous convicts and that even otherwise Section 436 Indian Penal Code has been attracted as the ready garments were burnt, but, before setting them ablaze, the clothes were thrown outside the shop and no harm was caused to the shop. Mr. Dutt further contends that the appellants have remained in custody for quite sometime. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel contends that the appellant do not deserve any lenient view as they had gone to the shop of the complainant and after forcibly entering therein, threw the articles outside and set them blaze. 13. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. However, the fine imposed under Section 436 Indian Penal Code is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- each from Rs. It is ordered accordingly. However, the fine imposed under Section 436 Indian Penal Code is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- each from Rs. 250/- each, whereas the fine imposed under Section 451 Indian Penal Code would remain the same. In the event of default of payment, the defaulting appellants would undergo RI for three months. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial court within three months, which if paid, shall be given to complainant/Jeet Ram without any delay. 14. With the modification in quantum of sentence as indicated above, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.