Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 279 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar Alias Bhola v. State Of Punjab

2006-02-02

VIRENDER SINGH

body2006
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioner Ashok Kumar alias Bhola and his real brother Dalwinder Singh alias Toni alias Dalwinder Kumar booked in a case FIR No. 45 dated 2.5.2001, under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo. Vide impugned judgment of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo the present petitioner was convicted under Section 324 IPC substantively and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. He was also convicted under Section 323 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. His brother Dalwinder Singh was convicted under Section 323 IPC substantively and was sentenced to undergo RI of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. He also stands convicted under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. All the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner and his co-accused filed an appeal. Vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Bathinda dated 27.1.2006, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner has been upheld whereas his brother Dalwinder Singh has been released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his furnishing requisite bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Hence, this revision petition by Ashok Kumar petitioner only. 3. learned counsel for the petitioner does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and has confined his arguments on the point of quantum of sentence only. The perusal of the impugned judgments otherwise shows that the same do not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or on law. The conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the Courts below is, thus, affirmed. 4. The instant petition is, however, admitted on the point of quantum of sentence only. Notice of motion. 5. The perusal of the impugned judgments otherwise shows that the same do not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or on law. The conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the Courts below is, thus, affirmed. 4. The instant petition is, however, admitted on the point of quantum of sentence only. Notice of motion. 5. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last about five years. He is not a previous convict; he is the sole bread owner in the family and therefore he prays for the concessional tilt with regard to quantum of sentence. 7. Another fact which has been brought to the notice of this Court is that the petitioner has also received injuries in this occurrence. He along with the complainant side was examined by Dr. Ram Gopal Arya PW3 on 1.5.2001, the date of occurrence. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to para No. 8 of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge where the factum of injury on the person of the petitioner is mentioned. The learned counsel who submits that the petitioner has come up with a specific defence in this case and the factum of receipt of injury on his person may also be taken into consideration. 8. Learned counsel lastly submits that the relief of probation has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without assigning cogent reasons. For the purpose of granting probation to the co- accused of the petitioner, the learned lower appellate court has observed, "that simple injury is attributed to him whereas the present petitioner has also received injuries". Instead of considering the factum of receipt of injuries on the person of the petitioner in his favour, the same has been taken against him. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel submits that the present petitioner may be released on probation of good conduct in the same terms as his brother Dalwinder Singh has been granted the relief. 10. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel submits that the present petitioner may be released on probation of good conduct in the same terms as his brother Dalwinder Singh has been granted the relief. 10. The prayer is opposed by the learned State counsel submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner has turned out to be grievous in nature attracting Section 324 IPC and therefore he is not entitled to be released on probation of good conduct. 11. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case especially the fact that the petitioner has also received injuries in the occurrence and the fact that he is facing the agony of protracted trial for the last about five years, the ends of justice would be adequately met if his substantive sentence of imprisonment is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Ordered accordingly. 12. However, the fine of Rs 500/- imposed upon the petitioner under Section 324 IPC substantively and Rs. 500/- under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC (in total Rs. 1000/-) is increased to Rs. 8000/-. A sum of Rs. 3000/- shall be converted into costs of proceedings under Section 5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act (for short the Act) whereas the a sum of Rs. 5000/- shall be disbursed to the injured Kuldeep Kumar under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act. It is made clear that the amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted in the enhanced amount. The bond to be furnished before the trial court shall be without supervision. 13. Except in the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the instant petition stands dismissed. Since the petitioner is stated to be in custody, all the concerned quarters be informed of the outcome of the instant revision petition at the earliest.