Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 785 (PNJ)

Parminder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-04-02

H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of two appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 187-SB of 1994 filed by the present appellants and Criminal Appeal No. 228-SB of 1994 filed by Surinder Singh together as they arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 7.3.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.1994 whereby he convicted appellants, namely, Parminder Singh and Gurpal Singh under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and they were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, appellant Surinder Singh (in Criminal Appeal No. 228- SB of 1994) was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Learned counsel at the very out-set has contended that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellants on merits and confines his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that a case under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants in the year 1988. The present appellants were convicted by the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 28.4.1994. Thereafter, they filed an appeal before this Court in the year 1994 and now a considerable period of 19 years has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that during this period, the appellants have been facing mental agony of the protracted trial and a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over their heads since then. Learned counsel prays that a lenient view be taken against the appellants since they are labourers by profession and they have already suffered imprisonment for 8 months 12 days and 9 months 27 days respectively during the trial of the case and after conviction. Learned counsel has further submitted that keeping in view the facts and mitigating circumstances of the appellants, as also the fact that they are poor labourers, some leniency by way of mercy be shown in the matter of sentence against the appellants. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that keeping in view the facts and mitigating circumstances of the appellants, as also the fact that they are poor labourers, some leniency by way of mercy be shown in the matter of sentence against the appellants. 4. Since the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has been restricted only on the quantum of sentence, therefore, in order to avoid repetition of facts in the judgment herein, I do not consider it necessary to recapitulate the same again, 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 appellants. It is no doubt true that on account of the pendency of the appeal for a long period, the appellants have been facing mental stress and agony of the protracted trial persistently for the last 19 years and in such like circumstances, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if a lenient view in the matter of sentence is taken against the appellants. Accordingly, taking a lenient view against the appellants, I direct that conviction recorded against appellants, namely, Parminder Singh and Gurpal Singh alias Pali under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code shall be maintained, but the period of sentence of 10 years already awarded to them by the learned trial Court is reduced to five years each. With this modification in the matter of sentence, appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 187-SB of 1994 is partly allowed. Appellants, namely, Parminder Singh and Gurpal Singh @ Pali, who are on bail, are directed to be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by this Court. The period of sentence already undergone by them shall be set off out of the sentence awarded to them by this Court. 6. So far as conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code recorded against the appellant Surinder Singh is concerned, the same is ordered to be maintained, but the period of sentence is reduced to the one, which he has already undergone by him while remaining in custody. 7. With the aforesaid reduction in the matter of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 228-SB of 1994 filed separately by appellant Surinder Singh is partly allowed.