Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2457 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2019-09-04

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Anil Kshetarpal, J. 1. Petitioner-Convict is in the revision petition against the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, whereby petitioner and co-accused in a jail break case, were convicted and sentenced under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which are extracted as under:- S. No. Offence Sentence Fine Imprisonment in default of fine 1. Accused Raja Ram No. 375 and 223 IPC RI 2 years Rs. 5,000/- One month 2. Accused Karamjit Singh No. 227 and 223 IPC RI 2 years Rs. 5,000/- One month 3. Accused Amarjit Singh 224 IPC RI 2 years Rs. 2,000/- 15 days 2. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner alongwith co-accused Nirvair Singh who was declared Proclaimed Offender had broke open the window and a wall of the prison where they were lodged in various criminal cases and escaped from the prison. Petitioner alongwith Constable Raja Ram and Constable Karamjit Singh were tried and convicted. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Court of Session. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and with his able assistance gone through the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, affirmed in appeal by the Court of Session. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts have erred in convicting the petitioner and there is apparent perversity in the judgment passed. He, in the alternative, has submitted that the petitioner is a poor person, having a family and, therefore, the sentence be reduced. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined Harcharan Singh as PW-1, ASI Puran Singh as PW-2, Iqbal Singh Brar as PW-3, Satish Kumar as PW-4, Puran Singh as PW-5, Baljinder Singh, Jail Warden as PW-6. 6. On a pointed question from learned counsel for the petitioner as to what was the error or perversity in the judgments passed by the Courts below, learned counsel failed to point out any error in the judgments passed. It is expected that once a counsel is raising an argument that judgments are result of perversity, it is the duty of the counsel to point out on what basis the argument is being raised. Hence, this Court does not find substance in the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is expected that once a counsel is raising an argument that judgments are result of perversity, it is the duty of the counsel to point out on what basis the argument is being raised. Hence, this Court does not find substance in the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. As regards argument of learned counsel that a lenient view be taken, it may be noted that petitioner was already accused in two previous criminal cases and hence lodged in prison. Thereafter, he in connivance with Nirvair Singh fled away from the Jail. In such circumstances, this Court does not find that petitioner deserves any leniency. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, there is no ground to interfere. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.