Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1443 (PNJ)

Jasbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2009-08-18

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2009
JudgmentJudgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.4.1997 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby he convicted the appellants under Sections 348 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 374 read with Section 34 of IPC and vide order of the same date, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 348 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and under Section 374 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants contends that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants on merit and confines his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that initially, the appellants were tried for the offences under Sections 342, 365, 366, 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 506 of IPC but ultimately vide judgment of conviction dated 2.4.1997, they were convicted only under Sections 348, 374 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that their appeal was admitted on 24.4.1997 and bail was granted by this Court on 30.4.1997. Since then, there is no other case pending against the appellants nor they are previous convicts. It is also submitted that they are agriculturists by profession and have small children. The fine imposed has already been deposited. 4. Learned counsel further submits that this case was registered against the appellants on 03.6.1993. Since then, 16 years have passed and during this period, they have faced mental agony of protracted trial and also the sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over their heads. It is also submitted that a lenient view may be taken against the appellants qua sentence as they are agriculturists by profession. 5. Since the prayer made is restricted only on the point of sentence, therefore, it is not necessary to re-capitulate the facts of this case. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. 6. It is also submitted that a lenient view may be taken against the appellants qua sentence as they are agriculturists by profession. 5. Since the prayer made is restricted only on the point of sentence, therefore, it is not necessary to re-capitulate the facts of this case. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. 6. It is no doubt true that the occurrence in this case took place on 03.6.1993 in which offences under Sections 365 and 376(2)(g) of IPC were also added against the appellants in which they were acquitted but they suffered mental agony as the sword of prosecution was persistently hanging over their heads for the last 16 years, therefore, keeping in view the background of the appellants and the fact as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that they have neither indulged in any crime after 03.6.1993 nor are they previous convict, I direct that conviction of the appellants namely Jasbir Singh and Surcsh Kumar shall be maintained under Sections 348 and 374 read with Section 34 of IPC, but they shall be released on their furnishing bail bonds of good conduct for a period of one year under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, and during this period, they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. In case of default, they will be sent back to custody to receive sentence as awarded by the trial Court. This appeal is thus disposed of in the manner indicated above. Appaal disposed of.