Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 828 (PNJ)

Harbans Gir etc. v. Punjab State

2004-08-04

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Harbans Gir and his brother Hans Gir sons of Lal Gir and Angrej Gir and his brother Darshan Gir sons of Hans Gir stand convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment dated 19.5.1994 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala, as under :- Hans Gir U/s 325 Indian Penal Code 3 years RI and to pay and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months. Harbans Gir, Angrej Gir and Darshan Gir U/s 325/34 Indian Penal Code J3 years RI and to pay and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months. Darshan Gir U/s 325 Indian Penal Code 3 years RI and to pay and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months. Hans Gir, Angrej Gir and Harbans Gir U/s 325/34 Indian Penal Code 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months. Angrej Gir U/s 324 Indian Penal Code 1 year RI Harbans Gir, Darshan Gir and Hans Gir U/s 324 Indian Penal Code 1 year RI each Harbans Gir U/s 324 Indian Penal Code 1 year RI Hans Gir, Angrej Gir and Darshan Gir U/s 324/34 Indian Penal Code 1 year RI each Harbans Gir, Hans Gir, Angrej Gir and Darshan Gir U/s 452 Indian Penal Code 1 year each 2. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. All the appellants were also charged under Sections 148/452, 307/149, 324/149 but they stand acquitted under Section 307/148 Indian Penal Code. Their co-accused Makhan son of Hans Gir was also booked in the present case along with the present appellants but he also stands acquitted and for this reason, charge under Section 149 Indian Penal Code also goes. 4. No appeal has, however, been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of Makhan or acquittal of the present appellants under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. 5. I have heard Mr. A.S. Jattana, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mansur Ali, learned D.A.G. Punjab. 6. 4. No appeal has, however, been filed by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of Makhan or acquittal of the present appellants under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. 5. I have heard Mr. A.S. Jattana, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mansur Ali, learned D.A.G. Punjab. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants does not assail the impugned judgment and instead has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence submiting that the present occurrence relates to the year 1992 and by now the appellant has faced agony of about long 12 years. He then contends that the appellants Hans Gir and Harbans Gir were of the ages between 45 to 50 years, whereas the other appellants Angrej Gir and Darshan Gir were of the ages of 23, 19 and 20 years. The learned counsel further submits that the injured Pritam Singh and the present appellants are from the same village and after the present occurrence, no untoward incident has ever happened between the two parties. All the four appellants have already remained for some time in custody during trial. Harbans Gir has remained in custody for about 7 months whereas Hans Gir and Angrej Gir remained in custody for two months and Darshan Gir remained in jail for one month. The appellants are not previous convicts and in case, they are sent to jail once again, after 12 years, it would adversely affect them. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence. 7. Opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, learned State Counsel has submitted that the present appellants do not deserve any leniency with regard to the quantum of sentence as all the appellants in connivance of them all have inflicted as many as 6 injuries on the person of Pritam Singh injured/complainant and out of six injuries, three have turned out to be grievous. 8. Although, the impugned judgment has not been assailed on merits, yet I have gone through the entire evidence minutely. I am of the considered view that the conviction suffered by the appellants for the aforesaid offences is well justified. I, consequently, affirm the conviction. 9. However, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to quantum of sentence. 10. The appellants have already faced ordeal of long 12 years. I am of the considered view that the conviction suffered by the appellants for the aforesaid offences is well justified. I, consequently, affirm the conviction. 9. However, I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to quantum of sentence. 10. The appellants have already faced ordeal of long 12 years. Out of the four appellants, two were of the ages of 20/23 years at the time of alleged occurrence. Even otherwise, grievous injury is on the non-vital part of the body of injured Pritam Singh. As stated by learned counsel for the appellants and not disputed by the learned State Counsel, the appellants have already undergone some period of their substantive sentence. Sending them now to jail once again to undergo remaining sentence, in my view, would be a harsh step. Consequently, upholding the conviction of the appellants, the substantive sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. However, sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- awarded to each of the appellant is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. Thus, total fine now to be recovered from the present appellants would be Rs. 12,000/-. In case, fine already awarded has been deposited by the appellants in the trial Court, the same shall be adjusted towards enhanced amount. They shall be depositing the aforesaid amount of fine in the trial Court within three months from today. In default thereof, they would undergo RI for four months. In the event of deposit, the same in turn be disbursed to injured Pritam Singh by the trial Court. 11. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.