Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4067 (PNJ)

Karaj Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-10-10

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

body2018
JUDGMENT Rajbir Sehrawat, J. - The challenge in the petition is to the judgment dated 22.5.2018, whereby the judgment and order dated 2.11.2016, passed by the trial Court, convicting the petitioner under Sections 483 and 411 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year, for each offence, was upheld by dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Vide order dated 6.7.2018, notice in this case was issued only qua quantum of sentence. 2. Brief facts of this case are that an FIR No. 76 dated 25.5.2012 was lodged under Sections 420, 483 and 411 IPC at Police Station Moonak, alleging against the present petitioner that on 25.5.2012, a police party, headed by HC Gurbhej Singh, was present in the area of Moonak, where a secret informer informed the police party that Karaj Singh-the present petitioner, indulged in sale of vehicles by forging their registration numbers, and that on that particular date, he was coming on a motor cycle of Yamha make, bearing Registration No. PB-65-P-3580 and that if a barricade is raised, then he could be apprehended. Finding the information to be worth believing, a barricade was raised. The petitioner was seen coming on a motor cycle. On seeing the police party, the petitioner tried to turn back. However, he was nabbed by the police officials. On being questioned, he disclosed his name as Karaj Singh, as was also informed by the secret informer. The petitioner was asked to show the documents regarding the ownership of the motor cycle. However, he could not give any reliable proof regarding the ownership of the said motor cycle. The motor cycle being driven by the petitioner was bearing Registration No. PB-65- P-3580. However, on verifying the details of the vehicle with reference to its chasis and engine numbers, the registration number displayed on the motor cycle was found to be assigned to one Swift Dezire car; and not to the motor cycle, which was found in possession of the petitioner. It was further alleged that during custody, the petitioner had made a disclosure statement for having in his possession one Bolero car; also with the forged registration number. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged. 3. The prosecution led its evidence. After appreciating the evidence brought on record, the trial Court held the petitioner guilty under Sections 411 and 483 IPC. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged. 3. The prosecution led its evidence. After appreciating the evidence brought on record, the trial Court held the petitioner guilty under Sections 411 and 483 IPC. However, the petitioner was acquitted of an offence under Section 420 IPC; since no sufficient evidence was produced by the prosecution to substantiate the offence under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced by the trial Court; to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence along with default imprisonment in case of non payment of fine. 4. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the present petitioner filed appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which was dismissed. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that ingredients of Section 483 IPC have not even been proved against by the prosecution, however, the fact remains that he could not assail the conviction under Section 411 IPC, since he was found in possession of stolen vehicle. 6. Resultantly, at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the present revision petition may be considered; at least; qua quantum of sentence. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued in the case only qua quantum of sentence. 7. While making his submissions for reduction of the sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had started with the allegations under Section 420, 483 and 411 IPC. However, admittedly, the case of the prosecution has not been found acceptable even by the Courts below in its entirity. Resultantly, the petitioner was acquitted of charge under Section 420 IPC. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of these facts, the petitioner deserves indulgence of the Court; on leniency; qua sentence. Further, to substantiate his submissions for reduction of the sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a young person of 27 years of age. He has faced the agony of the prosecution for about 6 years. He is the sole bread earner of the family. It is further contended that he is the first offender. Out of the sentence awarded by the Court, the petitioner has already undergone about six months. It is further submitted that even while in custody, the petitioner has maintained absolute good behaviour. He is the sole bread earner of the family. It is further contended that he is the first offender. Out of the sentence awarded by the Court, the petitioner has already undergone about six months. It is further submitted that even while in custody, the petitioner has maintained absolute good behaviour. Therefore, the Jail authorities have also awarded remissions to the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner can be led towards reformation. 8. Hence, prayer is made that sentence of the petitioner be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel, being instructed by ASI Lakhwinder Singh, has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner has already undergone 6 months and 2 days of actual sentence. He has also earned remissions of 20 days during the imprisonment for 6 months. Hence, he has undergone a total sentence of 6 months and 22 days as on 8.10.2018. However, the learned State counsel further submits that since the petitioner has been found in possession of two stolen vehicles, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency. Still further, the argument of the learned State counsel is that the trial Court has already taken a lenient view in the case and the petitioner has been awarded only the sentence of one year; as against maximum prescribed sentence of 3 years for the offence. It is further contended by the learned State counsel that another vehicle Bolero car was also recovered from the petitioner. However, the State counsel has not been able to bring on record anything to show that the petitioner is accused in any other case. Even the custody certificate does not disclosed any case; pending or decided; against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner is of young age and the main purpose of the imprisonment of a convict is to lead him towards reformation, so that the convict becomes less harmful for the society, after he comes out from the jail. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has already undergone 6 months and 22 days of imprisonment. He sufficiently reflected that he has learnt the lesson and therefore, he has maintained good behaviour even during the imprisonment, which led the Jail authorities even to grant him the remissions. 12. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has already undergone 6 months and 22 days of imprisonment. He sufficiently reflected that he has learnt the lesson and therefore, he has maintained good behaviour even during the imprisonment, which led the Jail authorities even to grant him the remissions. 12. Hence, keeping in view the entirity of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be unjustified if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced; as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, it would be sufficient in this case; if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, as ordered by the Courts below, the sentence of the petitioner is modified. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence which he has already undergone. Let the petitioner be released from custody; if he is not required in any other case.