Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 581 (PNJ)

Kishan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2004-05-19

V.M.JAIN

body2004
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by accused-appellant. Kishan Singh against the judgment and order 13.11.1991, passed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, convicting him under Sections 306/498A, I.P.C., and sentencing him to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for 2 years, under Section 306, I.P.C., and to undergo RI for 2 years under Section 498A, I.P.C., and directing both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. At the start of arguments, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant submitted before me that he is not challenging the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 306/498A, I.P.C., and that he would argue only on the question of sentence. He has filed an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for permission to place on record the affidavit of P.W. 6, Rattan Singh (father of Smt. Sudesh Kumari, deceased), and also the affidavits of Kumari Monika aged 22 years and Satbir aged 16 years, the two children of Smt. Sudesh Kumari, deceased. For the reasons given in the application, the said application is allowed arid the aforesaid affidavits of Rattan Singh, Monika and Satbir are taken on record. In the said affidavits, it has been alleged that accused-appellant, Kishan Singh, had looked after Rattan Singh, father of the deceased and the two children and had done a lot for them and that Monika was of marriageable age and that her marriage was fixed for 18.8.2004 with one Parveen Singh and that if accused-appellant, Kishan Singh, was sent to prison at this juncture, the prospects of the deponents settling well in life, shall be ruined. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant has rightly not challenged the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C., keeping in view the material available on the record, including the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, I uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, Kishan Singh, for the offences under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C. 4. Coming on the question of sentence; accused-appellant, Kishan Singh, was arrested in this case on 29/30.4.1990 and he remained in custody during investigation and trial till he was convicted and sentenced on 13.11.1991. Thereafter, he remained in custody as a convict. Accordingly, I uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, Kishan Singh, for the offences under Sections 406/498A, I.P.C. 4. Coming on the question of sentence; accused-appellant, Kishan Singh, was arrested in this case on 29/30.4.1990 and he remained in custody during investigation and trial till he was convicted and sentenced on 13.11.1991. Thereafter, he remained in custody as a convict. He was ordered to be released on bail on 12.3.1992 during pendency of the appeal and in fact he was released from custody on 16.3.1992, as per the communication received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In this manner, accused-appellant, Kishan Singh, has already undergone about 22 1/2 months of sentence. As referred to above, it is a case under Sections 306/498A, I.P.C. The maximum sentence provided is RI for 10 years. The matter has been amicably settled between the accused and the deceased side. Taking all these facts into consideration, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be fully met in case the sentence, awarded to the accused-appellant, is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. In view of the above, while upholding the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 306/498A, I.P.C., the substantive sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact. Except the modification on the question of sentence, the present appeal fails and is disposed of as such.