In this criminal revision, the petitioner challenged the reduced sentence awarded by the lower appellate Court regarding conviction for sections 332 and 506 of the IPC. The single judge held no substantial legal error and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2004.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2004.
Date of Decision: March 04, 2010.
Amarjit Singh ... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Present: Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate, with Mr. Anmol Pratap Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Raghbir Chaudhary, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
MOHINDER PAL, J.
Petitioner Amarjit Singh was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 353, 332 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). The maximum sentence
-2-
Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2004.
awarded to petitioner Amarjit Singh for the said offences was rigorous imprisonment for one year besides fine of Rs.500/-, i.e Rs.250/- each under Sections 353 and 332 of the Code, as the sentence awarded for these offences was ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Sections 332 and 506 of the Code to rigorous imprisonment for six months from rigorous imprisonment one year. The sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 353 of the Code, as awarded by the trial Court, was set aside as the accused had already been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 332 of the Code, which is a major offence and there was no need to sentence him separately under Section 353 of the Code. Both the sentences awarded under Sections 332 and 506 of the Code were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this revision petition by the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The instant case was registered on the complaint of Dr. Satbir Singh, Veterinary Hospital, Adampur, made before Sub Inspector Mangal Singh on 9.8.1999. He stated that on that day, when he went to the hospital at about 8 A.M, he found the gate of hospital locked. The office of the Block Samiti is near the hospital and both the offices of hospital and Block Samiti have separate gates. The complainant could not know the reason of
-3-
Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2004.
locking the gate of the hospital and the name of the person who had locked the same. Since the complainant was to open the hospital, he cut the chain of lock and opened the door. In the mean time, Chain Singh, Agricultural Development Officer, Gurdial Singh, Foreman, Block Samiti and Santokh Singh son of Udham Singh also came there. After two/three minutes, accused-petitioner Amarjit Singh, Superintendent of the office of Block Samiti, Adampur, came there and started abusing the complainant. The accused also slapped the complainant and removed his (complainant's) turban in the office. The accused also threatened to kill the complainant by saying that the gate had been locked by the Chaukidar of the Block Samiti and why the complainant had opened it. The aforesaid persons rescued the complainant from the accused.
On the complaint of Dr.Satbir Singh, the instant case was registered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The torn shirt of the complainant, a lock and a chain in two pieces were taken into possession. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation and due formalities, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in the Court.
Dr. Satbir Singh (P.W.5), complainant, who happened to be a Veterinary Officer, has deposed on the lines of the complaint submitted by him, on the basis of which the instant case was registered. The gist of the complaint has been mentioned above. The statement of Dr.Satbir Singh (P.W.5) has been corroborated
-4-
Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2004.
on record by Chain Singh (P.W.4), Agricultural Development Officer. Both of them are unanimous in their testimony. The ocular version furnished by Chain Singh (P.W.4) and Dr. Satbir Singh (P.W.5) gets support from the medical evidence given by Dr.Kuljeet Kaur (P.W.1). Dr. Kuljeet Kaur, who had medicolegally examined the complainant, had observed four injuries on his person i.e bruise below right clavicle bone (tenderness was present), bruise below clavicle obliquely placed on left side of chest (tenderness was present), bruise below left clavicle (pain and tenderness over chest was present and X-ray chest was advised) and pain over left shoulder joint was present (x-ray shoulder joint was advised). The petitioner-accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely pleaded innocence. He could not lead any defence to controvert the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution. He did not allege any enmity with the complainant. Thus, there was no reason for the complainant to lodge false complaint against the accused and no reason for Chain Singh (P.W.4), Agricultural Development Officer to depose falsely against the accused. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was holding a very responsible post of Superintendent of the Block Samiti. It did not behove him to physically handle the complainant, who was the Veterinary Officer of the Veterinary Hospital, Adampur, and to deter him from performing his official duties. As such, the petitioner has rightly been convicted by both the Courts below. His sentence
-5-
Criminal Revision No. 1762 of 2004.
has already been reduced from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the lower appellate Court, as mentioned above. No ground for further reduction in sentence awarded to the petitioner is made out.
For these reasons, I do not find any ground warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
March 04, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any finding is aggravated to interfere with the order of the lower appellate Court reducing the sentence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amarjit Singh
State of Punjab
Mohinder Pal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
