Allowed

State of Haryana v. Satbir and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2008CRA/76/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 436 IPC for setting fire to property and abusing the complainant. Considering the compounding of the offence and the period already undergone by the appellant, the court held that no further sentence should be awarded.

What did the court decide?

The appellant shall stand sentenced to the period already undergone; no further sentence to be awarded.

State of Haryana Vs Satbir and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Criminal Appeal No.76-SB of 1998

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.76-SB of 1998 Date of decision : 3.12.2008

Satbir

. ....Appellant

Versus

The State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

¶14

Present: Mr. Pamodh Saini,Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant

¶15

Mr. S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana

¶16

S. D. ANAND, J.

¶17

The appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Judge on a charge under Section 436 IPC on the allegations which may be summarised as under:-

¶18

Mst. Roshni is wife of Jagdish, a son of PW-1 Balbir/first informant. On 26.10.1995, she had been to the Gitwar where Umed Singh abused and belaboured her. The matter, though initially reported to the police, came to be compounded.

¶19

On 13.11.1995, Satish son of PW-1 Balbir Singh was belaboured by appellant Satbir and two others namely Subhash son of Ishwar and Jasbir son of Inder. Satish had to be hospitalised at Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak for 2-3 days. On 19.11.1995, at about 10.30 P.M., appellant Satbir and his two indicated associates appeared in front

¶20

Criminal Appeal No.76-SB of 1998

¶21

-2-

¶22

********

¶23

of the house of PW-1 Balbir Singh and had hurled abuses. Though Balbir Singh was not available in the house at that time, the other members of family were over there.

¶24

During the night aforementioned, the appellant set the Toora lying in the Gitwar and also his tractor bearing Registration No.HYR 2172 ( of which PW-1 Balbir Singh was the registered owner ) afire. PW-1 Balbir Singh and his son Jagdish had seen the appellants jump the wall while fleeing from the spot. Appellants also held out a threat to Balbir Singh.

¶25

The prosecution presentation was supported by the ocular testimony of PW-1 Balbir Singh, PW-2 Ram Phal and PW-3 Jagdish, The testimony of PW-4 Sumeet Kumar, PW-5 Constable Ram Bhagat, PW-6 Bishamber Dayal, Motor Mechanic, PW-7 ASI Rajbir Singh, PW-8 HC Rajbir Singh, PW-9 HC Ishwar Singh and PW-10 HC Ram Phal represents the various facets of investigational process of this case.

¶26

The appellant pleaded innocence and averred as under, in the course of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.:-

¶27

“I am innocent. I was falsely implicated in the above noted case. No offence has been committed by us as alleged by the prosecution. Witness have deposed faslely due to enmity as Satbir son of Umed Singh of village Gaddi Kheri who belongs to our family had illicit relations with the daughter-in-lawe of the complainant and due to that complainant planted the present false case against us in connivance with the police” The appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.

¶28

Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, very fairly concedes that he is not in a position to assail the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. Even otherwise, it is apparent from the record that

¶29

Criminal Appeal No.76-SB of 1998

¶30

-3-

¶31

********

¶32

the prosecution witness aforementioned had given a clear, categorical and clinching presentation about the manner in which impugned incident had taken place. Besides it, they also testified on oath whatever had transpired immediately preceding the impugned occurrence which constitute the motive for the commission of the crime. There can be no dispute about the identity of the appellant as perpetrator of the crime.

¶33

Even otherwise, it requires to be noticed that both the parties informed the trial Court (though at the stage of sentencing) that they had compounded the offence with the appellant. The compounding of offence would presuppose the fact that the parties conceded the factum of the impugned occurrence.

¶34

In the light of the fore-going discussion, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge shall stand upheld. However, in view of the fact that appellant has undergone the ordeal of trial/appeal since the year 1996 and it is own plea of both the parties to the prosecution that they had compounded the offence, it would be in the interest of justice to order that the appellant shall stand sentenced to already undergone period and it is so ordered accordingly.

¶35

December 03, 2008 Pka

¶36

(S. D. ANAND) JUDGE

State of Haryana v. Satbir and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Satbir and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gursewak Singh etc. Vs Hy.State

Rajinder Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ashok Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Partap Singh and Others. Vs Hy.St.

M/S Sajan Hire Purchase P Ltd. Vs Rajvir Kaur

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab Abd Anr.