Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 98 (PNJ)

Kulbhushan v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2004-01-28

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - By this Judgment I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 256-SB of 1991 Kulbhushan v. U.T. Chandigarh and Criminal Appeal No. 277- SB of 1991 Raja Gandhi v. U.T. Chandigarh, as both are arising from one and the same impugned judgment dated 5.7.1991 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :- Raja Gandhi, under section 307 Indian Penal Code, substantively RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-,, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one mon Kulbhushan alia Kala under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-,, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that Rajinder Parshad on 22.2.89 was brushing his teeth while standing in front of his house when both the appellants reached there and enquired from his about him brother Rajesh Kumar as he (Rajesh Kumar) was to pay Rs. 70/- for which repeated demands had already been made to him. It is then the case of Rajinder Parshad that, in fact, they were to take money from Raja Gandhi. At this Raja Gandhi slapped Rajinder Parshad and he made an attempt to save himself. Kulbhushan appellant put him in his embrace and Raja Gandhi took out a knife from the pocket of his pant and stabbed Rajinder Parshad in his abdomen. He made a raula which attracted his brother Rajesh and his wife Renu. They rescued Rajinder Parshad from the clutches of the appellants. Both the appellants then ran away from the spot. Rajinder Parshad was shifted to the hospital. Intimation regarding the arrival of injured was sent to the police. PW-7, SI Balwan Singh reached the hospital. After getting the medical opinion from the doctor, statement Ex. PE of Rajinder Parshad was recorded. A formal ruqa Ex.PE/1 was sent to the police station upon which present FIR was recorded. The other investigation was also done by the investigating officer. Raja Gandhi was arrested on 27.2.1989 and in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PH, a knife Ex.P2 was recovered from him which was taken into possession vide separate recovery memo Ex.PH/2. Kulbhushan was also arrested in this case. The other investigation was also done by the investigating officer. Raja Gandhi was arrested on 27.2.1989 and in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PH, a knife Ex.P2 was recovered from him which was taken into possession vide separate recovery memo Ex.PH/2. Kulbhushan was also arrested in this case. After completion of the investigation, both the appellants were challaned to face trial. 3. Raja Gandhi was charged substantively under Section 307 Indian Penal Code whereas Kulbhushan was charged under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. After appreciating the entire evidence, they stand convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. D.S. Brar, learned counsel appearing for Kulbhushan, Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing for Raja Gandhi and Mr. Ajay Lamba learned Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh. 5. Learned counsel for both the appellants have submitted at the very outset that they do not assail the impugned judgment on merits and instead confine their arguments with regard to reduction in sentence only. The main argument advanced by them is that the present occurrence relates to the year 1989 and as such they have suffered the agony of long 15 years. It is then submitted that Raja Gandhi was of the age of 20 years and Kulbhushan was hardly of the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence and they are now settled in their life. It is further submitted that during the interregnum period no untoward incident has ever happened between the present appellants or the complainant side. It has also been brought to my notice during the course of arguments that both the appellants have already undergone more than two months of substantive sentence which includes the period as under-trial prisoner. 6. Relying heavily on the above said submissions, both the learned counsel pray for reduction in the quantum of sentence. 7. The learned State counsel has, however, opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant do not deserve any leniency so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned as both of them had gone to the house of the complainant with a motive to cause injury to him. 8. Although the impugned judgment of conviction has not been assailed on merits yet I have gone through the entire evidence minutely. 8. Although the impugned judgment of conviction has not been assailed on merits yet I have gone through the entire evidence minutely. The prosecution in support of its case has examined PW-5, Rajinder Parshad injured-complainant and PW-6, Renu another eye-witness. Besides this, I have gone through the other statements minutely. I have also scanned the medical evidence. I am of the considered view that the conviction of the present appellants is well merited. It is, thus, confirmed. 9. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, I find force in the submissions made on behalf of both the appellants. The present occurrence relates to February, 1989. By now the appellants have suffered the agony of protracted trial of long 15 years. Even otherwise from the facts of the case the appellants have gone to the house of the complainant to take Rs. 70/- from Rajesh Kumar, the real brother of the complainant-injured. They had no intention to cause any injury to Rajinder Parshad. The matter flared up all of a sudden when Rajinder Parshad remarked that in fact Raja Gandhi appellant owed the money to them and this infuriated Raja Gandhi and he all of a sudden slapped Rajinder Parshad. Admittedly, Rajinder Parshad did not owe any money to Raja Gandhi appellant. This all indicates that this matter has been flared up on a very petty issue. This fact can be taken as a mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellants. Another fact which also calls for taking a lenient view is that both the appellants were of the age of 18/20 years at the time of occurrence. They must have settled in their life within this 15 years. Admittedly no untoward incident has ever haped during this interval. As stated on behalf of the appellants and not controverted by the learned State counsel, both the appellants have already undergone some period of substantive sentence. In my view sending the appellants to jail once again to serve the remaining part of substantive sentence would amount to reopening of the chapter which has settled down by now with the lapse of time. 10. Their Lordships of the 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. 10. Their Lordships of the 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 weigh 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 same 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." 11. In my considered view the ends of justice would be adequately met, if the sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- awarded to Raja Gandhi appellant is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- and keeping in view the injury received by Rajinder Parshad injured in this case, the same is converted into compensation to be paid to injured Rajinder Parshad. In default of deposit of fine, Raja Gandhi shall undergo RI for three months. 12. So far as fine of Rs. 200/- awarded to Raja Gandhi appellant is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- and keeping in view the injury received by Rajinder Parshad injured in this case, the same is converted into compensation to be paid to injured Rajinder Parshad. In default of deposit of fine, Raja Gandhi shall undergo RI for three months. 12. So far as fine of Rs. 200/- imposed upon Kulbhushan appellant for his conviction under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same would remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 13. In case of deposit of fine by Raja Gandhi appellant, the same shall be disbursed to Rajinder Parshad injured by the trial Court without any delay. 14. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, both the appeals stand dismissed. Intimation of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court. Appeals dismissed.