Dismissed

Hem Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2011CRR/3243/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence to death for murder committed during a marriage procession. Finding the petition barred by the CrPC provisions and that the case did not satisfy the 'rarest of rare' criteria, the revision was dismissed, upholding the life imprisonment sentence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; sentence of life imprisonment upheld.

Hem Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Crl. Revn. No. 3243 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2011

¶3

Hem Kumar

¶4

.... PETITIONER

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and another

¶7

..... RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL

¶9

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶12

Hem Kumar has filed this revision petition against the order of sentence dated 3.5.2010, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. This revision petition is barred by time and the petitioner has also filed an application (Crl. Misc. No. 63876 of 2010) for condoning the delay of 169 days in filing this petition.

¶13

Since none is present on behalf of the petitioner, we have examined the case on merits.

¶14

Vide judgment dated 1.5.2010, the trial court has convicted accused Yudhvir (respondent No.2 herein) under Sections 302, 323 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, for committing the murder of Vijay Sharma and causing injuries to complainant Krishan Kumar, by using a pistol. Vide

¶15

Crl. Revn. No. 3243 of 2010 -2-

¶16

order dated 3.5.2010, respondent No.2 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 5,000/- under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of 1,000/- under Section 323 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶17

According to the petitioner the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to respondent No.2 under Section 302 IPC is inadequate and not proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and he should have been awarded the capital punishment of death.

¶18

We have gone through the impugned order as well as the grounds of revision.

¶19

Undisputedly, under Section 372 Cr.P.C., a right to appeal to the victim has been given only in three circumstances, i.e. (i) appeal against acquittal of the accused; (ii) if the accused has been convicted for a lesser offence; and (iii) where inadequate compensation has been awarded. Since the ground on which the present revision petition has been filed is not covered by any of the aforesaid three circumstances, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to file an appeal under the aforesaid provision. Section 377 Cr.P.C., empowers the State Government to file appeal against the order of sentence, if the Public Prosecutor feels that the sentence awarded is inadequate. In view of this position, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. By these provisions, this court has been empowered to examine the record of any

¶20

Crl. Revn. No. 3243 of 2010

¶21

-3-

¶22

proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, passed by the court.

¶23

On examination of the judgment of conviction, we find that the occurrence had taken place suddenly during a marriage procession, where the accused and the deceased were dancing. The accused allegedly fired one shot from a pistol, which he had brought after about 10 minutes of the previous altercation. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence had suddenly taken place, where only one shot was fired, conscious of the court is not shaken and the case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases, where capital sentence of death should be awarded. Keeping in view al these facts, we do not find any reason to entertain this revision petition for enhancing the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶24

Dismissed.

¶25

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 01, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE

Hem Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Balraj Sharma and Ors. Vs Shanti and Ors.

Banwari & Ors. Vs Ram Sanehi & Ors.

Dharampal & Ors. Vs Ram Bhagat

State of Pb and Others Vs Rameshwar Mal Singla

Ved Parkash Vs Gram Panchayat Vill Deegh

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Amarjit Kaur Bhullar