Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1195 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2004-10-27

JASBIR SINGH

body2004
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2004, petitioner was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 326, 325, 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of an offence under Section 326 IPC. He was also directed to undergo RI for one year for commission of an offence under Section 325 IPC and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. For commission of an offence under Section 324 IPC, he was directed to undergo RI for six months and for violation of Section 323 IPC, he was directed to undergo RI for three months. He went in appeal, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 2. Record shows that complainant Tarsem Singh filed a criminal complainant for commission of offences, as referred to above, against petitioner and one Harbhajan Singh. After recording preliminary evidence, both of them were summoned to face trial. On conclusion of trial, Harbhajan Singh was acquitted, however, petitioner Nirmal Singh was convicted and sentenced, as found mentioned in earlier para of this judgment. 3. It was case of the complainant that on 26.5.1987 at about 1.30 P.M. he had gone to Gurdwara to render service in village Nadala. When he had reached near the house of Harbhajan Singh, both Harbhajan Singh and Nirmal Singh were standing there. Nirmal Singh petitioner blocked his way by parking a cycle in the street. He was caught hold by Harbhajan Singh from his hair and dragged him to his house, where Nirmal Singh caused injuries to him with a `datar. On medical examination, six injuries were found to have been caused to the complainant. Three were found to be grievous in nature. 4. It is not necessary to refer to further details as Mr. Brar, appearing for the petitioner has confined his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. Counsel argued that alleged occurrence had taken place on 26.5.1987. Petitioner continued to face agony of trial till 27.10.1990. Thereafter, his appeal remained pending which was dismissed on 5.1.1993. Then he filed the present revision in this Court. During this period, counsel argued that petitioner might have suffered financially and mentally as well. A lurking fear, that he will be sent behind the bars, on one day or the other, has its desired effect which has resulted into reforming petitioner. Then he filed the present revision in this Court. During this period, counsel argued that petitioner might have suffered financially and mentally as well. A lurking fear, that he will be sent behind the bars, on one day or the other, has its desired effect which has resulted into reforming petitioner. Counsel states that after commission of this offence, petitioner has not indulged into any other offence of the like nature. Counsel further brought it to the notice of the Court that petitioner is the only bread winner for his family and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, his entire family will suffer. It has further been stated that petitioner and the complainant are the co-villagers and if at this stage, petitioner is asked to undergo remaining part of the sentence, it will not be conducive towards peace and harmony in the village, rather it will have a negative effect. Counsel further states that during trial and after conviction, petitioner had remained in jail for more than one month and he prays that sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by him. 5. Mr. Prabhakar, appearing for the complainant has opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. By referring to the evidence on record, he has stated that the guilt of the petitioner is proved on record and punishment awarded to him is in proportion to the offence committed by him and prays that revision, having no substance, be dismissed. He also prays that in case leniency is to be shown to the petitioner, interest of the complainant be protected by granting him compensation by invoking provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the parties heard. 6. Purpose of criminal law justice is not only to bring discipline, peace and harmony in the society but is also to give an opportunity to an erring individual to reform oneself. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000(3) Supreme Courte 561 (SC) : 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 had opined that in appropriate cases, reformative approach is required to be adopted. 8. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000(3) Supreme Courte 561 (SC) : 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 had opined that in appropriate cases, reformative approach is required to be adopted. 8. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, 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. 9. Similar is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 600. 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. 10. To the same effect, is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Crl.) 467. 11. Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(10) Supreme Court Cases 486, wherein, in a case under Section 304 Part II IPC, leniency was shown to the accused in that case and they were ordered to be released on probation. 12. To support his contention, counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577, wherein after convicting the appellant- accused therein for commission of an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in para No. 12 as under :- "12. Even so on the facts and in the circumstances of this case we do not feel persuaded to let off the appellant with an imposition of fine only. We, however, thought that sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. We were informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellants wife was also filed before us to the effect that the appellant was in jail for about nine months as an under trial prisoner and for about four months after conviction. Thus he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. We were informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellants wife was also filed before us to the effect that the appellant was in jail for about nine months as an under trial prisoner and for about four months after conviction. Thus he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. The occurrence took place more than a decade ago. The appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years further imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the appellant not under Part I of Section 304 of the Penal Code but under Part II." 13. Similarly, their Lordships of Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987(1) RCR(Crl.) 455 (SC) : AIR 1987 (SC) 806, where petitioner in that case was charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, upholding his conviction have opined as under :- "Learned counsel ultimately contended that this appellant a Patwari who had faced the trial and pendency of this appeal for about 14 years will now have to go to jail for serving out a part of this sentence which remained to be served. It is no doubt true that having been convicted for these offences the appellant is bound to lose his service. It was also stated that he had served out some sentence of the imprisonment also. The incident is of 1972 and we are now in 1987. In view of these circumstances in our opinion the sentence of the imprisonment already undergone and sentence of fine imposed by Honble the Trial Court will meet the ends of justice. Consequently appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However his sentence as regards sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone but the sentence of fine is maintained. He is on bail. His bail bond shall be cancelled; if he had not paid the amount of fine shall do so within one month from today." 14. However his sentence as regards sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone but the sentence of fine is maintained. He is on bail. His bail bond shall be cancelled; if he had not paid the amount of fine shall do so within one month from today." 14. It is apparent from the record that petitioner and the complainant are the co-villagers and if at this stage, petitioner is sent behind the bars, it certainly will vitiate atmosphere in the village. Alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1987. With the passage of time parties might have forgotten about bad incident. Petitioner had already remained in jail for about one month. 15. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case, conviction is upheld, however sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by the petitioner. However, keeping in view provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR(Crl.) 750 (SC) : AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372, petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent. Requisite amount be deposited in the trial court within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit being so made, trial Court is directed to disburse the same to the complainant forthwith. 16. With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of.