Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 226 (PNJ)

Ravinder Singh alias Babbu v. State of Punjab

2004-02-25

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Ravinder Singh alias Babbu aged 21 years and his co- accused Jujhar Singh alias Titu aged 18/19 years were charged under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Jaswant Lal on 3.1.1995. Jujhar Singh alias Titu stands acquitted whereas the present appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 11.9.1996 under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. 2. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgment, I do not feel the necessity of entering into detailed discussion on facts. 3. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 3.1.1995, at about 7 PM, Harbans Lal and Jaswant Lal were coming on cycles to their village from Jalandhar. When they reached near the Octroi Post Reru, one Pushpa Rani of their village sat on the carrier of the cycle of Jaswant Lal. Whey they had crossed the drain of village Dhogri, the present appellant and his co-accused Jujhar Singh came on their cycles from behind. They made Harbans Lal and Jaswant Lal stopped and asked them as to why they were carrying a woman who is stranger. Jaswant Lal told him that she was not stranger and belongs to their brotherhood. This resulted into abusing and then Jujhar Singh (since acquitted) allegedly caught hold of Jaswant Lal by his right arm while the present appellant taking out a dagger (chhura) from the dub gave blow on the left side of his abdomen. Tarlok Singh alias Bittu also reached there and he saw the present occurrence. Jaswant Lal was taken to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar where he was medico-legally examined and he ultimately died on 4.1.1995. 4. The learned trial court after examining the entire evidence has observed that there was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased since the appellant has not taken any undue advantage, the knowledge of the act that it was likely to cause death can be attributed to him, therefore, his case falls under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. He, as such, was convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code instead of section 302 Indian Penal Code for which he was charged. He, as such, was convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code instead of section 302 Indian Penal Code for which he was charged. His co- accused was, however, acquitted. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by the State on any count. 5. Although the learned counsel has not assailed the impugned judgment and has confined his arguments to the quantum of sentence only, yet I have perused the entire evidence once again being the first Court of Appeal. 6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its charge has examined seven witnesses namely Harbans Lal PW1, Tarlok Singh PW2, Dr. Romesh Kumar PW3, Dr. A.S. Saini PW4, Chini Lal PW5, ASI Avtar Singh PW6 and Dr. Jasvinder Pal PW7. Besides this certain affidavits and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory have also been tendered in evidence. Some of the witnesses have been given up as unnecessary. Pushpa Rani has also been given up as having been won over. 7. I am of the considered view that the appellant has been rightly convicted under section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. His conviction is, thus, reaffirmed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant asks for the release of the appellant on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act mainly on the ground that the present altercation had ensued all of a sudden when the present appellant and his co-accused had found a lady sitting on the cycle of Jaswant Lal and at the spur of the moment with no previous enmity when both the sides started exchanging abuses, the present appellant gave one blow to the deceased which ultimately proved fatal. It is then contended that the appellant was of the age of hardly 21 years at the time of occurrence and he is not a previous convict. It is then contended that the present occurrence relates to the year 1995 and the appellant by now has settled in his life after getting married and in case he is sent to jail once again, it would bring turmoil in his settled life. The learned counsel, thus, asks for releasing the appellant on probation. It is then contended that the present occurrence relates to the year 1995 and the appellant by now has settled in his life after getting married and in case he is sent to jail once again, it would bring turmoil in his settled life. The learned counsel, thus, asks for releasing the appellant on probation. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relies upon Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(10) SCC 486 (SC), State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh, 1995(2) RCR 239 (P&H), Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) RCR 444 (P&H), Ravinder alias Ravi v. State, 2001(2) RCR(Crl.) 311 (Delhi). 9. The learned counsel in the alternative states that the appellant remained in custody for about five months during trial and for about one month and 20 days after conviction and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, his substantive sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. The learned State counsel has, however, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and contends that the present appellant does not deserve any leniency with the regard to quantum of sentence. 11. I have seen the charge sheet dated 7.3.1995. The present appellant is shown to be of the age of 21 years. There is no reason to dispute his age as it has not been controverted by the State at any stage. With regard to the facts of the present case and keeping in view the tender age of the present appellant at the time of occurrence and the fact that he must have settled in his life by now, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. However, the fine is increased to Rs. 10,000/-. The same shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy and a sum of Rs. 8000/- out of said fine shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. 12. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.