Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 394 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2005-03-16

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
Judgment S.N.Aggarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment dated 9.5.1991 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana, by which the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for having committed offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 8.3.1988 at 1030 A.M. Singh was driving Maruti Car No. PCF-9564 which was owned by Kuldip Singh. Ghai Lal Singh - Complainant had taken this car to the house of Preet Inder Singh Ghai. Kuldip Singh Ghai went to some other place in other car of son-in-law of directing Lal Singh complainant driver to wait for them. Lal Singh was sitting in the car. Four young persons came in front of Kothi No. 1 at about 11.10 A.M. and they snatched the car from Lal Singh. They also threatened him not to raise the alarm. Lal Singh, complainant also informed Satinder Kaur, mother of Preet Inder Singh, who informed the police control room. Those four assailants had also taken away rifle from the house of Nanak Singh. The case was got registered by Lal Singh complainant. 3. The accused were arrested on 21.3.1988. The matter was investigated and the accused/appellants were sent for trial. 4. The charges were framed by the learned trial Court against the accused/appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case the prosecution examined complainant Lal Singh as PW 1, Nanak Singh as PW2, Surinder Singh Bakshi as PW3, Harmesh Singh as PW4, Mohinder Kaur as PW5, Joginder Kaur as PW6, Jarnail Singh as PW7, Inspector S.S. Brar as PW8, Inspector Sohan Lal as PW9 and closed its evidence. 6. The statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused/appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. 7. In defence the accused/appellants examined Assa Singh DW 1, Lal Singh as DW2 and DW3 Harbhajan Singh. On the basis of this evidence the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case. Accordingly, the accused/appellants were convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC vide judgment dated 9.5.1991. Raj Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years besides the fine of Rs. On the basis of this evidence the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case. Accordingly, the accused/appellants were convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 411 IPC vide judgment dated 9.5.1991. Raj Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years besides the fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 397 IPC while Jail Singh was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years besides the fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine they were to further undergo RI for 2 months each. Jail Singh was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 411 IPC in default of payment of fine he was to further undergo RI for one month. 8. Hence, the present appeal. 9. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sindhu, DAG Punjab submits that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case. 10. I have gone through the evidence led by the prosecution as also by the defence. I am satisfied that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction of the accused/appellants recorded by the learned trial Court is unassailable. Therefore, the conviction of the accused/appellants is upheld. 11. Jail Singh accused/appellant has undergone more than three years and three months of imprisonment while Raj Kumar has remained in custody for more than two months. The occurrence had taken place on 8.3.1988. The accused/appellants faced trial in the learned trial Court for about three years. The appeal also remained pending in this Court for about 14 years and it will not be in the interest of justice to call upon these appellants now to undergo remaining part of sentence. Moreover, keeping in view the fact that object of criminal law is to reform the individual offender than to punish him, their sentence is reduced to one already undergone by them. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms. March 16, 2005.