Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 744 (PNJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2007-03-29

H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of two cases, being Criminal Appeal No. 273-SB of 1995 filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence and Criminal Revision No. 752 of 1995 filed by the complainant praying for grant of compensation and enhancement of sentence qua the present appellant and further for awarding appropriate sentence to another accused namely Bhushan Kumar, who had been acquitted of the charge by the trial Court, together as they arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 22.4.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.4.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which he convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. However, both the accused were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302/34 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel at the very out-set has contended that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant on merits and confines his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that a case under Sections 302/34 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants in the year 1993. Both the accused, including the present appellant, were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302/34 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the present appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 22.4.1995 of the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before this Court in the year 1995 and now a considerable period of 15 years has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that during this period, the appellant has been facing a mental agony of the protracted trial and a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over his head since then. Learned counsel further prays that a lenient view on the quantum of sentence be taken against the appellant since he is a shopkeeper by profession and he has already suffered imprisonment for some period during the trial of the case. 4. Learned counsel further prays that a lenient view on the quantum of sentence be taken against the appellant since he is a shopkeeper by profession and he has already suffered imprisonment for some period during the trial of the case. 4. Since the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has been restricted only on the quantum of sentence, therefore, I do not consider it necessary to recapitulate the facts again in the judgment herein, since they have been narrated in the judgment of the trial Court in details. 5. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is no doubt true that on account of the pendency of the appeal for the last more than 16 years, the appellant has been facing mental stress and agony and since then a sword of conviction has been hanging over his head and in such like circumstances, in my considered view, no useful purpose would be served, except for creating disturbance now at this stage in the peaceful marital life being led by him, in case the appellant is sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court after a period of more than 16 years. 6. After examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed and also keeping in view the fact that the appellant must have undergone some period of sentence by remaining inside the jail during the trial of the case as also after the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, coupled with the present circumstances, as discussed above, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a lenient view in the matter of sentence is taken against the appellant. Accordingly, conviction against the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant shall stand reduced to the period which he has already undergone. However, keeping in view this important aspect of the matter that since a precious life of a man was lost in the incident, therefore, some reasonable amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- is required to be provided to the complainant-petitioner with a view to compensate the family of the deceased, which I order accordingly. However, keeping in view this important aspect of the matter that since a precious life of a man was lost in the incident, therefore, some reasonable amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- is required to be provided to the complainant-petitioner with a view to compensate the family of the deceased, which I order accordingly. In case the aforementioned amount is not paid within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in that event, the sentence awarded by the trial Judge shall remain in force to be served out by the appellant. 7. With the aforesaid reduction in the matter of sentence, the appeal is partly allowed. 8. Since the main appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 273-SB of 1995 filed by the appellant has been partly allowed and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation has been awarded to the complainant with a view to compensate the family of the deceased, therefore, the prayer made by the complainant regarding awarding of compensation is accepted and with regard to enhancement of sentence and setting aside of acquittal order passed in favour of another accused, namely Bhushan Kumar is disallowed. Accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 752 of 1995 filed by the petitioner is allowed partly.