Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3377 (PNJ)

Abdul Shakoor v. State of Punjab

2010-12-17

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (oral) 1. The accused-appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter referred as 'trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the case bearing FIR No.6 dated 15.1.1990, registered at Police Station Malerkotla for inflicting injuries on the persons of Boota Mohd., Dalshad on account of parking of cart. 2. The learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide impugned judgment and order dated 7.11.2001 has convicted the accused-appellants for the commission of offence under Sections 324, 324/34, 323, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under:- Section Accused/appellants Sentence 324 IPC Rafikan To undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of two months. 323 IPC -do- To undergo RI for a period of six months. 323/34 IPC -do- To undergo RI for a period of six months 324/34 IPC Abdul Shakoor To undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of two months. 323 IPC -do- To undergo RI for a period of six months. 323/34 IPC -do- To undergo RI for a period of six months. 324/34 IPC Saleem To undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of two months. 323 -do- To undergo RI for a period of six months 323/34 -do- To undergo RI for a period of six months 3. All the substances were ordered to run concurrently. 4. It is worthwhile to mention her that in the occurrence both the parties received injuries and regarding one incident, single FIR No.6 dated 15.1.1990 was registered at Police Station Malerkotla, in which version of both the parties was probed and two different challans were presented in Court against each other. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment/order of conviction / sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court. 6. The present appeal was admitted on 3.12.2001. 7. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment/order of conviction / sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court. 6. The present appeal was admitted on 3.12.2001. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute the finding of the learned trial Court on merits and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. The appellants are stated to have suffered the agony of protracted trial for more than 20 years as the FIR is dated 15.1.1990 and they have not misused the concession of bail. Reference has been made to judgments of this Court in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 563 and Niranjan and another v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) RCR (Crl.) 620, wherein in similar circumstances, the accused/petitioner was released on probation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. In the instant case, the appellants have got no previous criminal history. They have suffered protracted trial for the last more than 20 years and have not misused the concession of bail. The appellant Rafeekan is more than 80 years old. Sending the appellants to jail once again at this juncture, in my view, would be a hard step. In my opinion, it is a fit case, in which the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them, should be set aside, and they be released on probation of good conduct. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence, the age of the appellants, and that they are not previous convicts, they are entitled to be released on probation of good conduct. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. However, the order of sentence is set aside, and the appellants are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years, on their furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of `5,000/-each, with one surety, in the like amount each, to appear and receive sentence, as and when called upon during this period, and, in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The appellants shall also furnish an undertaking that they shall not commit any offence of the like nature, during the probation period. The appellants shall also pay costs of the proceedings, to the tune of `1,000/-each. The requisite bonds shall be furnished and the costs shall be deposited, within a period of two months, from today, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. In case, the requisite bond is not furnished and the litigation expenses are not deposited, within the period stipulated, this appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, shall be at liberty to proceed, in accordance with the provisions of law. 13. With this modification in conviction and sentence, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed.