Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1502 (PNJ)

Jatinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-10-16

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.: - In a nut-shell the facts of the case are that on 12.12.2005, the statement (Ex. PB) of Gurjinder Singh (injured) was recorded by HC Balraj Singh, to the effect that he was student of class 10th and resident of village Narru. On 11.12.2005, at 5.00 p.m., he was watching television along with his grand-father in his house, then the petitioner, Jatinder Singh, came there in a drunken condition and started raising demand of money. On refusal by Gurjinder Singh, the petitioner-accused gave a kick blow on his left toe and Kirch blow on left hand. On raising alarm, the petitioner-accused, Jatinder Singh, fled away from the spot. 2. On the basis of the above statement, FIR No. 257, dated 12.12.2005 (wrongly mentioned as 12.1.2005 in the impugned judgment as well as in the custody certificate submitted by the Jail Authorities), under Sections 324 and 452, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala. The petitioner-accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, the report in terms of Section 173, Cr.P.C., was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. 3. Finding a prima facie case, the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 452, IPC, were framed against the petitioner-accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined HC Balraj Singh (PW-1), Gurjinder Singh (PW-2), Dr. Sunny Singla (PW-3), Harchand Singh (PW-4), HC Kesar Singh (PW-5) and Dr. P.C. Goel (PW-6). 4. The statement of the petitioner-accused in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., was recorded. He denied the incriminating material appearing against him and pleaded innocence. No evidence in defence was led. The learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 452, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo the following sentences:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. No. Under Section Sentence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 324, IPC. RI for 1 year besides fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo SI for 1 month. 2. 452, IPC. RI for 2 years besides fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to further undergo SI for 1 month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. No. Under Section Sentence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 324, IPC. RI for 1 year besides fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo SI for 1 month. 2. 452, IPC. RI for 2 years besides fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to further undergo SI for 1 month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 3.8.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, by way of an appeal, without any success. Now, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition before this court challenging the judgments of the two Courts below. 6. The present criminal revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 9.8.2012. At that time, the learned counsel for the petitioner proposed not to challenge the verdict of conviction on merits. However, she submitted that keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was on higher side, therefore, notice of motion was issued for consideration of the quantum of sentence only. 7. Learned counsel contended that concededly the injuries on the person of the complainant-injured, Gurjinder Singh, were found to be simple in nature attracting the mischief of Section 324, IPC, only. The said injuries were on non-vital parts. She further submitted that the petitioner had lost his father at the young age and except the petitioner there is no other person to look after the widowed mother and younger unmarried brother. She further submitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict. She further submitted that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than three months. She also submitted that the petitioner was facing the agony of the trial and the appeal for the last more than 7 years and 9 months, therefore, the petitioner be released on probation. 8. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner had caused the injury on the person of the complainant-injured, Gurjinder Singh, by means of a sharp-edged weapon while trespassing his house, therefore, no leniency be shown to such a person. Learned counsel for the State had produced the affidavit of P.S. Sharma, Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, dated 13.10.2012, showing the custody period undergone by the petitioner, which is taken on record. 9. Learned counsel for the State had produced the affidavit of P.S. Sharma, Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, dated 13.10.2012, showing the custody period undergone by the petitioner, which is taken on record. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 10. Though the notice of motion was issued for consideration of the quantum of sentence only, but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available on record has been re-appraised and it is found that the learned Courts below have rightly held the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 452, IPC. However, the sentence awarded to the petitioner requires modification on the following grounds. (i) It is the first offence by the petitioner, therefore, he should be given a chance to mend himself; (ii) The injuries on the person of the complainant-injured, Gurjinder Singh, were on non-vital parts and simple in nature; (iii) The petitioner has been facing the protracted trial for the last more than 7 years; (iv) The petitioner has lost his father and there is no one in his family to look after his widowed mother and younger unmarried brother; and (v) The affidavit produced by the learned State counsel reveals that the petitioner has already suffered the incarceration for 3 months and 3 days as on 13.10.2012. 11. In view of the above, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him, without there being any change in the amount of the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court. 12. With the above modification in the order of sentence, the present criminal revision petition is disposed of.