Allowed

Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2012CRA-S/1264/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral judgment allowing appeals against conviction and sentence. Upholding the conviction for voluntary cause of hurt and right of private defence, the High Court granted probation of good conduct for one year and directed the release of appellants on personal bond with a surety.

What did the court decide?

Released on probation of good conduct for one year on personal bond with surety; fines treated as costs.

Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRA No.1264-SB of 2001 CRR No.1420 of 2002

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA No.1264-SB of 2001

¶5

Date of decision : 03.08.2012

¶6

Sadhu Singh and others

¶7

...Appellants

¶8

Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CRR No.1420 of 2002 Date of decision : 03.08.2012

¶9

Mohan Singh and others

¶10

...Petitioners Versus

¶11

State of Punjab and another

¶12

…Respondents

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶14

********

¶15

Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶16

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

¶17

Mr. Anmol Pratap Singh Mann, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶18

¶19

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶20

CRA No.1264-SB of 2001

¶21

This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 11.10.2001, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

¶22

CRA No.1264-SB of 2001 CRR No.1420 of 2002

¶23

¶24

*Name of the appellant*	*Under Sections*	*Sentence*
Sadhu Singh	452 IPC	RI for 3 years and a fine of`3,000/-
	323 IPC	RI for 6 months and a fine of`500/-
Mohinder Singh	323 IPC	RI for 3 years and fine of `3,000/-
Santokh Singh	452 IPC	RI for 3 years and a fine of`3,000/-
	323 IPC	RI for 6 months and fine of`500/-
Mohan Singh	452 IPC	RI for 3 years and a fine of`3,000/-
	323 IPC	RI for 6 months and fine of`500/-
Tarsem Singh	452 IPC	RI for 3 years and a fine of`3,000/-
	324 IPC	RI for 1 year and a fine of `1,000/-
Gurdev Singh	452 IPC	RI for 3 years and a fine of`3,000/-
	323 IPC	RI for 6 months and fine of`500/-

¶25

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The present appeal was filed on 29.10.2001, and was admitted on 02.11.2001.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merit. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident pertains to the year 1994 and the appellants have suffered protracted trial for more than 18 years. The appellants are 73 years, 58 years, 48 years, 39, years, 53 years and 65 years, respectively. It is a case of free fight. The appellants are the first offenders and no untoward occurrence took place between the parties since then.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the case against the appellants is proved

¶28

CRA No.1264-SB of 2001 CRR No.1420 of 2002

¶29

¶30

beyond doubt, therefore, no leniency should be shown to the appellants.

¶31

The appellants do not have a criminal background. It is a case of sudden free fight. They have suffered a protracted trial of more than 18 years.

¶32

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as “ R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another” observed as under:-

¶33

“26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment”

¶34

In another case titled as “ Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana” , 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

¶35

“After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16(1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special

¶36

CRA No.1264-SB of 2001 CRR No.1420 of 2002

¶37

¶38

reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents.

¶39

Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.

¶40

The appeal is disposed of accordingly”

¶41

The appellants do not have a criminal background. It is a case of sudden free fight. They have suffered a protracted trial of more than 18 years. The parties have buried the old hatchet and are leading peaceful life. None of them is a previous convict.

¶42

The conviction of the appellants, as mentioned above, is maintained. The appellants are stated to be on bail, as they were released on bail by the convicting Court to enable them to file an appeal. They filed this appeal and vide order dated 02.11.2001, the

¶43

CRA No.1264-SB of 2001 CRR No.1420 of 2002

¶44

¶45

sentence of the appellants was suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

¶46

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, character of the offenders, each of the appellants are directed to be released on probation of good conduct for one year, on each one of them furnishing personal bond with one surety of the like amount with an undertaking that they shall appear to receive the sentence when called upon to do so during such period and in the meantime, to keep peace and maintain good behaviour. The fine paid shall be treated as costs of the proceedings. The bonds be furnished within two months from today to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, failing which this appeal shall be treated to have been dismissed and the appellants shall have to surrender to undergo the remaining part of sentence.

¶47

CRR No.1420 of 2002

¶48

The Criminal Revision No.1420 of 2002, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶49

August 03, 2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE

Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Niwas Vs Vikas Kumar

Dhian Dass Vs Nirmal Singh, A.S.I. and Another

Vanita Virk Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) Harjit Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab

Iqbal Singh Vs Jagir Singh Dhillon and Ors.

Suraj Bhan Vs M/S Ishaan Electro Industries