Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 793 (PNJ)

Pappu v. State of U. T. , Chandigarh

2004-07-29

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Pappu son of Sher Singh, the petitioner herein, was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, under Sections 452/354 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 452 Indian Penal Code, in default of payment thereof, he was to undergo S.I. for three months. He was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, which also stands dismissed by the impugned judgment dated July 21, 2004. Hence, this revision. 3. I have heard Mr. J.M. Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment minutely. 4. Mr. Bajaj contends that main witnesses of the prosecution including the prosecutrix had exaggerated the basic case set up by the prosecution at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. He then contends that the Investigating Officer had not joined any independent witnesses from the neighbourhood. He further contends that defence of the petitioner has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court, which is proved by the cogent evidence. 5. I have rescanned both the impugned judgments in light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and find no infirmity in the same. I am of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner under Sections 452/354 of Indian Penal Code beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on merit. Ordered accordingly. 6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence as his alternate prayer. 7. Notice of motion qua sentence only to the learned Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. 8. On asking of the Court Mr. Ajai Lamba, learned Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh, accepts notice. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner at the time of occurrence was of the age of hardly 26/27 years. He is married person and is having minor children. He also contends that the petitioner has already faced the agony of long five years by now and as such, he deserves leniency towards quantum of sentence. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner at the time of occurrence was of the age of hardly 26/27 years. He is married person and is having minor children. He also contends that the petitioner has already faced the agony of long five years by now and as such, he deserves leniency towards quantum of sentence. 10. Learned Standing Counsel, however, opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 11. Maximum punishment awarded to the petitioner is of one year under Section 452 Indian Penal Code and under Section 354 Indian Penal Code he has been awarded sentence for six months only. No doubt, the spirit of criminal law does not warrant leniency to the accused convicted of such type of offences, but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is running his entire family including his minor children and considering the fact that he has been sentenced for six months only under the offence of Section 354 Indian Penal Code, ends of justice would be adequately met with if his substantive sentence of one year awarded under Section 452 Indian Penal Code is also reduced to six months. Ordered accordingly. To make it more clear on both counts sentence of the present petitioner shall be of six months only. However, sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court, shall remain as it is. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.