Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3131 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab

2010-11-22

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. CM Nos.60744-45 of 2010 1. Notice to AG Punjab. 2. Mr.Rajinder Mathur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on the asking of the Court. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, both CMs are allowed. Crl.A.No.655-SB of 2000 4. The accused-appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred as 'trial Court') for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in the case bearing FIR No.14 dated 3.2.1999, registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar for inflicting injuries with 'chhuri' on the person of complainant-Dharminder Kumar, with an intention to kill him. 5. The learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide judgment and order dated 12.7.2000 (hereinafter referred as 'impugned judgment'), has convicted the accused-appellant for the commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment/order of conviction/sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court. 7. The present appeal was admitted on 27.7.2000 and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail by this Court on 14.11.2000. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the judgment/order of conviction/sentence on merits. However, he has prayed for reduction of sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone after taking a lenient view as the appellant as suffered the agony of protracted trial for more than 11 years. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that since offence is proved, so no leniency should be shown. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. The appellant is stated to have suffered the agony of protracted trial for more than 11 years as the FIR is dated 3.2.1999 and has not misused the concession of bail. 12. In Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, it has been observed as under: “Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. 12. In Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161, it has been observed as under: “Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law”. 13. In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 14. Similar is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 600. In that case in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted. 14. Similar is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 600. In that case in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted. However, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. 15. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 Supreme court Cases 486, wherein in a case under Section 304 Part II IPC, leniency was shown to the accused in that case and they were ordered to be released on probation. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577, observed as under: “Even so on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we do not feel persuaded to let off the appellant with an imposition of fine only. We, however, thought that sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. We were informed at the Bar and an affidavit sworn by the appellant's wife was also filed before us to the effect that the appellant was in jail for about nine months as an under trial prisoner and for about four months after conviction. Thus, he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. The occurrence took place more than a decade ago. The appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially. Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default two years further imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the appellant not under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code but under Part II.” 17. Although the impugned judgment is not assailed on merits by the learned counsel for the appellant, yet I have rescanned the entire evidence minutely. I do not find any lacuna in the prosecution case. Consequently, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court is required to be re-affirmed. 18. However, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of sentence. I do not find any lacuna in the prosecution case. Consequently, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court is required to be re-affirmed. 18. However, I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to quantum of sentence. He has already faced the agony of protracted trial for more than 11 years. Sending the appellant to Jail once again at this juncture, in my view, would be a hard step. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code stands maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. 19. With the above modification/direction, the present appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.