Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 399 (PNJ)

Sukha Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-03-31

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Sukha Singh, Karnail Singh sons of Sohan Singh, Malook Singh son of Karnail Singh, Milkha Singh and Charan Singh sons of Sukha Singh, all residents of village Gulhar were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samana vide judgment dated 16.11.1990. All the petitioners were sentenced to undergo RI for six months each under Section 148 Indian Penal Code. Petitioners Milkha Singh and Sukha Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each under Section 326 Indian Penal Code whereas petitioners Karnail Singh, Malook Singh and Charan Singh have also been sentenced to the same extent under Section 326 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. 2. Milkha Singh and Charan Singh were further sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each under Section 325 Indian Penal Code whereas Sukha Singh, Karnail Singh and Malook Singh were sentenced to same extent under Section 325 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. 3. Petitioner Karnail Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 324 Indian Penal Code whereas other four petitioners were also sentenced for the same extent under Section 324 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. 4. Malook Singh was also sentenced to undergo RI for three months under Section 323 Indian Penal Code whereas other four petitioners were sentenced to the same extent under Section 323 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, appeal was filed and the same also stands dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment dated 13.6.1995. Hence this appeal. 6. The brief facts as disclosed in the statement Ex.PA of Gian Singh reveal that on 29.4.1987 at 9.00 AM, the present petitioners started ploughing his fields forcibly and when they were stopped by Gian Singh alongwith his brother Wirsa Singh and father Dalip Singh and uncle Tara Singh, the present petitioners who were armed with different weapons started assaulting the complainant side. On the statement of Gian Singh formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded. 7. I have heard Mr. O.P. Nagpal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.S. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record. 8. The learned counsel representing the petitioners without joining issues on merits, however, has contended that by now a period of 17 years has gone by and that the petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted trial and the petitioners have already undergone 3-1/2 months of their actual substantive sentence. The petitioners also belong to the family of the complainant and as such they be dealt with leniently with regard to quantum of sentence. He then submits that Sukha Singh and Karnail Singh were of the age of 60 years at the time of occurrence whereas Malook Singh, Milkha Singh and Charan Singh were also of the age of 20 years who must have well settled by now. 9. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 328 (P&H), Bohar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 387 (P&H) and Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003(3) RCR(Crl.) 450 (P&H). 10. The learned State counsel, however, refuted the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the case of the petitioners does not call for any sympathetic tilt in connection with the quantum of sentence. 11. Although the impugned judgments of the Courts below have not been assailed on merits, yet I have minutely perused the entire evidence on record and am of the view that the conviction as recorded by the trial Court has been rightly affirmed by the first appellate Court. I, re-affirm the impugned judgments of conviction. 12. However, I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the quantum of sentence. Admittedly, the occurrence relates to year 1987. The petitioners have suffered the agony of protracted trial of 17 years. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners and not disputed as well by the learned State counsel, the petitioners have already undergone 3-1/2 months of substantive sentence. Even otherwise the record indicates that after the appeal was dismissed on 13.6.95, the sentence of the present petitioners was suspended by this Court on 13.9.1995. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners and not disputed as well by the learned State counsel, the petitioners have already undergone 3-1/2 months of substantive sentence. Even otherwise the record indicates that after the appeal was dismissed on 13.6.95, the sentence of the present petitioners was suspended by this Court on 13.9.1995. In my view, if the petitioners are sent to jail once again to serve out their remainder part of sentence, it would not only disturb their entire family but would also reopen the old chapter within the family which must have been forgotten with the passage of time. 13. Their Lordships of Apex Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, have observed 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 weight 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 time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has 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. Such a situation has to be avoided again within the permissible limits of law." 14. 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." 14. The other three judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also advance the case of the petitioners with regard to quantum of sentence. 15. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the ends of justice would be adequately met, if while upholding the order of conviction recorded against the petitioners, the sentence imposed upon them be reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. 16. At the same time this Court is also conscious of the fact that the complainant side has received several injuries and that they are also not forgotten in this case. Admittedly, four persons namely Gian Singh, Wirsa Singh, Dalip Singh and Tara Singh have received injuries in this case which are attributed to all the five petitioners. The main injury is on the person of Gian Singh resulting into complete cut of distal phylanx of right thumb of right hand. I, consequently increase the fine of Rs. 20,000/- to be shared by all the petitioners. So ordered. In the event of default of fine, the petitioners shall undergo the complete sentence as imposed by the learned courts below. If the amount is paid, Rs. 8,000/- shall be remitted to Gian Singh whereas the remaining Rs. 12,000/- shall be shared by other three injured. The petitioners are, however, given three months time from today to deposit the increased amount of fine before the trial court. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.