Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 235 (PNJ)

Kabal Singh v. Satnam Singh

2005-02-09

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. These five Criminal Appeals arise out of same judgment dated 24.3.1989 by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced for having committed an offence punishable under Section 412 IPC. 2. Before taking up the facts of this case, the names of the appellants and numbers of Criminal Appeals may be given. (Kabal Singh and Satnam Singh appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 150-SB of 1989) (Sube Singh appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 243-SB of 1989) (Gurdeep Singh appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 207-SB of 1989) (Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 326-SB of 1989) (Sarwan Singh alias Lakhwant Singh appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 176-SB of 1989) 3. The facts of the case are that Lala Madho Ram was a small Karyana dealer in village Harbri. He was also running the business of money lending after securing the money by pawning of ornaments from his villagers and others. On the night intervening 6th and 7th of June, 1986, dacoity had taken place in his house in which lot of cash and gold ornaments etc. amounting to the value of Rs. 6,15,000/- were taken away. The murders of Lala Madho Ram, of his mother Smt. Ananti Devi and of his wife Smt. Satya Devi were committed. 4. Accordingly, a case was got registered in Police Station Pundri at FIR No. 193 dated 7.6.1986 under Sections 302, 396, 460, 148, 412 IPC and the criminal machinery was set in motion. The accused/appellants along with one Sher Singh were sent up for trial. 5. Charge for the said offences was accordingly framed against the accused/appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution in all examined 58 witnesses. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused/appellants pleaded false implication. 8. The accused/appellants examined nine witnesses in defence. 9. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the involvement of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/148, 396 and 460 IPC. They were accordingly acquitted for these offences. There was no evidence against Sher Singh co-accused, therefore, he was acquitted. 10. 9. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the involvement of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/148, 396 and 460 IPC. They were accordingly acquitted for these offences. There was no evidence against Sher Singh co-accused, therefore, he was acquitted. 10. Since the ornaments of gold and some amount in cash were recovered from Sube Singh, Kabal Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Sarwan Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Satnam Singh, appellants, therefore, they were convicted by the learned trial Court under Section 412 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years besides the fine amount of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 11. Hence, these five appeals by six convicted appellants. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that he will not dispute the conviction of these appellants as lot of evidence has come against them. It is otherwise also conclusively proved that the accused/appellants had made disclosure statements and had got recovered gold ornaments and cash money which was the subject matter of robbery in the house of Madho Ram on the fateful night. Therefore, their conviction under Section 412 IPC is upheld. 13. It was, however, submitted that all the appellants were arrested immediately after the occurrence in the month of August, 1986. Kabal Singh and Satnam Singh were admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 5.6.1986 passed in their Criminal Appeal No. 150-SB of 1989. Sube Singh was admitted to bail on 19.5.1989, Gurdeep Singh on 20.8.1988, Sukhdev Singh on 3.9.1990 and Sarwan Singh on 12.4.1989. Therefore, Kabal Singh and Satnam Singh have already undergone more than three years imprisonment each while Sube Singh and Sarwan Singh have undergone more than two years and eight months each. Gurdeep Singh and Sukhdev Singh were on bail during the trial but after conviction they have also undergone imprisonment. While Gurdeep Singh has undergone more than two years, Sukhdev Singh has undergone more than four years of imprisonment. Hence, it was prayed that leniency may be shown regarding the sentence awarded to them. 14. The occurrence, in this case, had taken place in the night intervening 6th and 7th of June, 1986. While Gurdeep Singh has undergone more than two years, Sukhdev Singh has undergone more than four years of imprisonment. Hence, it was prayed that leniency may be shown regarding the sentence awarded to them. 14. The occurrence, in this case, had taken place in the night intervening 6th and 7th of June, 1986. The appellants faced trial in the trial Court upto 24.3.1989 when the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 412 IPC. At that time, Sube Singh and Kabal Singh were about 24/25 years while Gurdeep Singh was 45 years, Sukhdev Singh 30/32 years and Satnam Singh 27/28 years. The appeals filed by them remained pending in this Court till today. The appellants have already undergone substantial portion of the sentence awarded to them and now if they are called upon to undergo the remaining part of their sentence after the lapse of more than 15 years, it will defeat the ends of justice. Moreover, the appellants are first offenders. There is no evidence that they have committed any offence after they were released on bail in this case. Therefore, the sentence of the appellants is reduced to one already undergone by them. 15. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.