Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 803 (PNJ)

Ram Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-03-01

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

body2006
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ram Singh against his conviction under Sections 395 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 42 months under Section 395 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further RI for three months. He has been further sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 342 IPC, which is to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 16.6.1995, SI Surjit Singh recorded statement of one Kuldip Singh, to the effect that he was cultivating land of Mangal Singh and on 15.6.1995, he had harvested the crop and was sleeping on a cot and 6/7 persons came on a tractor trolley, tied him with a parna and chaddar, gagged his mouth with a khesi and tied him with a sheesham tree. Four persons were guarding and the remaining put the seeds of sunflower in the bags. Soni and Vijay came to the site and they raised lalkara on which all the accused persons ran away along with the tractor trolley. Jasbir Singh and Daljinder Singh came to the spot and untied Kuldip Singh. The person who was in the tractor trolley, fell down in a ditch and received injuries, whose name was disclosed as Kartara. He was apprehended and disclosed names of others as Nathu, Leela, Ram Singh, Roshan, Bant Singh and Kalua. Kartara was medically examined and simple injuries were found on his person. Identification parade was organised but the accused refused to join on the ground that they had been shown to the witnesses. Three bags of seeds of sunflower were taken into possession. 3. After investigation, seven persons were sent up for trial. Out of seven persons, who were sent up for trial, Bant Singh was declared proclaimed offender and Kalua was acquitted. The remaining five were convicted and out of five persons convicted, four did not prefer any appeal, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Prosecution, inter alia, examined PW-12 Kuldip Singh, complainant, Jasbir Singh PW-6, who had seen the accused running away and Kewal Singh alias Soni, PW-13 who had come to the spot while the offence was taking place. Three bags of seeds were recovered vide memo Ex. PD. Ex. PG is the medico-legal report. 4. Prosecution, inter alia, examined PW-12 Kuldip Singh, complainant, Jasbir Singh PW-6, who had seen the accused running away and Kewal Singh alias Soni, PW-13 who had come to the spot while the offence was taking place. Three bags of seeds were recovered vide memo Ex. PD. Ex. PG is the medico-legal report. Parna, Chaddar and Khesi were taken into possession vide Ex. PC. Tractor was taken into possession vide Ex. PE. SI Surjit Singh, PW-14 is the investigating officer. 5. The trial Court held the case of the prosecution to be fully proved, mainly in view of evidence of Kuldip Singh PW-12 and Jasbir Singh PW-6, who identified all the accused and whose evidence inspired confidence. Names of the accused were mentioned at the earliest stage in the statement of Kuldip Singh, Ex. PM. Roshan, accused was held to be owner of the tractor on the basis of statement of Lal Singh, PW-1, who claimed to have sold the tractor to the said accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Ram Singh, fairly stated that he could not question his conviction, in view of evidence of PW-12 Kuldip Singh, which is corroborated by PW-6 Jasbir Singh and other circumstances. 8. After perusing the evidence on record, I am of the view that case of the prosecution against the appellant stands fully proved. Conviction of the appellant is, accordingly, upheld. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged occurrence took place 11 years ago and the value of seeds in respect of which attempt to commit dacoity was made, was negligible and the appellant has already undergone 14 months of imprisonment, as noticed in the order of this Court dated 18.8.2000. Nothing adverse has been noticed against the appellant ever since he has been on bail for the last more than five years and, thus, at this stage, it will be in the interest of justice to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant, to the sentence already undergone. Learned counsel for the State is unable to point out any circumstance, which may call for awarding higher sentence. Learned counsel for the State is unable to point out any circumstance, which may call for awarding higher sentence. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, ends of justice will be met if substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him, while upholding his conviction and sentence of fine. Order accordingly. The appeal is disposed of.