Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 585 (PNJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2006-02-21

VIRENDER SINGH

body2006
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Suresh Kumar, Gurmail Singh and Balwant Singh have suffered conviction vide impugned judgment of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal dated 26.9.2004 under Sections 323/324/326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Vide order dated 27.9.2004, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default of payment thereof to further undergo RI for 15 days under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment thereof to suffer further RI for one month under Section 324, read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one month under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioners on merits, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 12.11.2005 modified the substantive sentence part as under : 3. To undergo RI for 3 months under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, to undergo RI for six months under Section 324 IPC red with Section 34 IPC and to undergo RI for 1-1/2 year under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Fine was however kept intact. Hence this revision petition. 4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sunil Katyal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Devinder Punia, learned counsel representing the complainant. The trial Court records have also been perused by me. 5. Mr. Jindal does not assail the impugned judgments on merits and instead confines his submissions with regard to reduction in the sentence part. 6. Although Mr. Jindal has not joined issue on merits, yet I have gone through both the impugned judgments very minutely and of the view that the conviction as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court deserved to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 7. With regard to reduction in the quantum of sentence, Mr. 6. Although Mr. Jindal has not joined issue on merits, yet I have gone through both the impugned judgments very minutely and of the view that the conviction as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court deserved to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 7. With regard to reduction in the quantum of sentence, Mr. Jindal submits that may be Suresh Kumar and Balwant were armed with Gandasi and have also caused one injury each on the person of Satpal, (the main injured) but the case set up by the prosecution is that after Satpal had fallen down, Suresh and Balwant along with their co-accused Gurmail, who was armed with ladhi, had given feet blows to him. According to the learned counsel, this reflects that the gandasi blow is not repeated on Satpal. He then submits that the main injury attracting Section 326 IPC and attributed to Suresh Kumar is on the right leg of Satpal (non-vital part). The injury received by Mala Ram, the real brother of Satpal by a sharp edged weapon has turned out to be simple in nature, attracting Section 324 IPC. 8. Dwelling upon his arguments, Mr. Jindal then submits that the occurrence relates to June 1993 and by now the petitioners have suffered the agony of protected trial of long 13 years; that they are not the previous convicts and as such a lenient view may be taken qua them with regard to quantum of sentence. The learned counsel very fairly states that as per the medical record, injury on right leg of Satpal has resulted into fracture of both the bones of shaft, for which he can be adequately compensated. Mala Ram can also be compensated with a reasonable amount for the simple injury received by him at the hands of one of the petitioners by a sharp edged weapon (gandasi). The learned counsel then submits that although the lower appellate Court has already shown a lenient view in reducing the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioners by the trial Court, yet the petitioners deserve a further lenient tilt in the light of aforesaid facts especially when they have already undergone some period of their substantive sentence i.e. two months and a few odd days. 9. Whatever is submitted by Mr. Jindal on facts is not controverted by the learned State counsel or even by learned counsel for the complainant. 9. Whatever is submitted by Mr. Jindal on facts is not controverted by the learned State counsel or even by learned counsel for the complainant. But the prayer is opposed (sic). 10. I find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Jindal. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that two of the petitioners namely Suresh Kumar and Balwant Singh, who were allegedly armed with gandasis, did not repeat the blows and the fact that the main injury is on non-vital part, the petitioners, who are facing the rigor of trial for the last 13 years, do deserve a lenient view with regard to quantum of sentence. Ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them, but certainly after taking into consideration the fact that adequate compensation is to be awarded to the injured. While reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone and exercising the powers under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby award a compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Satpal on account of the main injury suffered by him on his right leg, resulting into fractures of both the bones of the shaft. Similarly Mala Ram, his real brother, shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the simple injuries suffered by him. It is, however, made clear that the amount of compensation shall be in addition to the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The aforesaid amount of compensation (Rs. 60,000/-) shall be deposited by the petitioners before the trial Court within clear 30 days from today and on its deposit, the trial Court would disburse the same to both the injured in the terms indicated above. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated hereinabove, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. Since the petitioners are in custody, all concerned quarters be informed of the outcome of the present revision petition without any delay.