Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 391 (HP)

GURDHARVA SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-05-06

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. ASSAILING the judgment dated 10.8.2006, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, Distt. Chamba, H.P. in Crl. Case No. 45-II of 2000, titled as State vs. Gandharav Singh, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P. vide judgment dated 8.3.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2006, titled as Gandharav Singh vs. State of H.P., the accused-petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. IN relation to F.I.R. No. 32 of 2000 (Ext. PW 6/A), registered on 7.4.2000 at Police Station Dalhousie, accused stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for having committed offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and also undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for having committed an offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment was to run concurrently. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner preferred an appeal. The lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. 3. AFTER having heard the matter for some time, Ms. Vibhuti Nakta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly, under instructions from the petitioner, does not challenge the findings and judgment of conviction. However, keeping in view the fact that the incident took place in the year 2000; petitioner is the sole bread earner and has a family of five members to support; it is his first offence and has maintained good conduct all throughout, it is urged that a lenient view be taken and instead of sending the accused behind bars, at this stage, the sentence of imprisonment be converted to that of payment of fine. 4. AS already noticed, accused-petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for the charged offences, after he was given adequate opportunity of leading his defence. Taking into consideration the overall attending circumstances and a holistic view thereof, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if at this stage the quantum of sentence is reduced and modified. 4. AS already noticed, accused-petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for the charged offences, after he was given adequate opportunity of leading his defence. Taking into consideration the overall attending circumstances and a holistic view thereof, I am of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if at this stage the quantum of sentence is reduced and modified. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment, in relation to all the charged offences is modified and set aside, but however, with regard to each of the offences i.e. under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the petitioner stands convicted, he shall pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 5000/-, respectively. Petitioner, through his learned counsel, undertakes to deposit the same in the trial Court within a period of eight weeks from today. It is clarified that if the amount is not so deposited, the original order of sentence shall revive, which the petitioner, through his counsel undertakes to serve. 5. DECISION to reduce the sentence, in my considered view, is in the interest of justice, parties and is expedient, considering the given facts and circumstances. With the aforesaid observations, present revision petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applications, if any. Records of the Courts below be immediately sent back.