Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 357 (PNJ)

Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga v. State of Punjab

2009-02-18

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 22.01.02, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which, it partly accepted the appeal, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 20.05.98, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran, by reducing the substantive sentence, awarded to the accused, for the offences, punishable under Sections 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the sentence of fine and in default of payment of fine, was maintained. 2. On 04.02.97, Sharnjit Kaur, prosecutrix, was present in her house. Her father had gone to purchase household articles, from a shop. Her mother had already expired. Her brother was a truck driver. At about, 7.00 PM, on that day, when she was all alone in her house, Dilbagh Singh @ Bagga son of Ajit Singh, resident of village Buregil, entered the same and tried to push her inside by holding her arms. She, however, got herself freed, from the clutches of the accused (now revision-petitioner) and ran to the roof of the house. She raised alarm, as a result whereof, Gurmej Singh son of Mohan Singh, was attracted and witnessed the entire occurrence. Thereafter, Dilbagh Singh @ Bagga, ran away. After sometime, the father of the prosecutrix came back, and she narrated the entire occurrence to him. On the basis of the statement, made by the prosecutrix, the First Information Report, was registered. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against him, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Sharnjit Kaur, prosecutrix (PW1), Gurmej Singh, an eye-witness (PW2), and Devinder Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW3). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant (now revision- petitioner), which was partly accepted, in the manner, referred to above. 8. Still feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 9. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and carefully perused the evidence and record of the case. 10. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not assail the conviction, recorded by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully assail the same. The concurrent findings of the Courts below, regarding the proof of the guilt of the accused, are based on the correct appreciation of cogent, convincing and reliable evidence of Sharnjit Kaur, PW1, who deposed, in terms of the prosecution version, referred to above, While narrating the facts of the case, Gurmej Singh, PW2, an eye- witness, who corroborated her statement and Devinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, the Investigating Officer, PW3. The judgment of conviction, rendered the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The finding recorded by the Courts below, with regard to the proof of guilt of the accused, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be perverse or erroneous. It is settled principle of law, that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot reappreciate and reappraise the evidence, until and unless, it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Courts below, were prima-facie perverse or erroneous. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, thus, deserves to be upheld. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the revision-petitioner, be reduced suitably, as he has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 05.02.1997 i.e. for the last more than 12 years. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, and affirmed by the Appellate Court, thus, deserves to be upheld. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the revision-petitioner, be reduced suitably, as he has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 05.02.1997 i.e. for the last more than 12 years. He further submitted that during all these years, he suffered a lot of pain and agony and has come to senses. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. The sword of damocles has been hanging over the head of the revision- petitioner, for the last more than 12 years. In my considered opinion, he must have learnt the lesson, by now. At this stage, it would be too harsh, to send the revision-petitioner to jail. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the revision-petitioner, has already undergone 2 months and 12 days of sentence. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice, shall be met, in Case, the substantive sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and 12 days. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, to this extent, is accepted. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, and affirmed, by the Appellate Court, is upheld. The substantive sentence is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioner, shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and 12 days, on each count. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. However, the sentence of fine, and in default of payment of fine, shall remain intact. 13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgment, in accordance with the provisions of law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, promptly, on receipt of a copy of the judgment. Petition partly allowed.