Partly allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2012CRA-S/1276/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal regarding sentence revision. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to reduce the appellants' rigorous imprisonment to the period already served, considering their age, health, clean record, and the fact that the parties have since lived in peace.

What did the court decide?

The sentences of rigorous imprisonment were reduced to the period already undergone; bail bonds were discharged.

(O&M) Harjit Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRA No.1276-SB of 2001

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA No.1276-SB of 2001

¶5

Date of decision : 03.08.2012

¶6

Harjit Singh and others

...Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

********

¶13

Present: Mr. Anmol Pratap Singh Mann, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶14

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.

¶15

Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the complainants.

¶16

¶17

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶18

This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order

¶19

dated 11.10.2001, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

¶20

Jalandhar, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

¶21

*Name of the appellant*	*Under Sections*	*Sentence*
Harjit Singh	323 IPC	RI for 6 months and a fine of`500/-
Gurmit Singh	324 IPC	RI for 1 year and fine of `1,000/-
Mukhtiar Singh	324 IPC	RI for 1 year and fine of `1,000/-
	323 IPC	RI for 6 months and fine of`500/-
Avtar Singh	307 IPC	RI for 5 years and fine of `5,000/-
	27 Arms Act	RI of 3 years and fine of `3,000/-

¶22

CRA No.1276-SB of 2001

¶23

¶24

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The present appeal was filed on 29.10.2001, and was admitted on 05.11.2001.

¶25

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 incidence pertains to the year 1994 and the appellants have suffered protracted trial form more than 18 years. Appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are 58years, 78 years and 65 years, respectively. It is a case of sudden free fight. The appellants are the first offenders and no untoward occurrence took place between the parties since then. The appellants have already deposited the fine at the time of their release on bail.

¶26

The State counsel produced custody certificate of Avtar Singh, which proves that Avtar Singh has undergone 01 year 01 month and 13 days of actual sentence.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the case against the appellants is proved beyond doubt, therefore, no leniency should be shown to the appellants.

¶28

This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 03.05.1994. The appellants do not have a criminal background. It is a case of free fight in which both the parties received injuries. They have suffered a protracted trial of more than 18 years. The parties have lived in peace thereafter,

¶30

CRA No.1276-SB of 2001

¶31

¶32

which suggests that the parties have buried the old hatchet and are leading peaceful life. They are in the last phase of their life.

¶33

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:-

¶34

“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”

¶35

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

¶36

“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 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

¶37

CRA No.1276-SB of 2001

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

The appeal is disposed of accordingly”

¶42

For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the sentence/imprisonment already undergone by the appellant will meet the ends of justice.

¶43

Consequently, the conviction of the appellants, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to one already undergone by them.

¶44

The impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above. The appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶45

This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶46

August 03, 2012

¶47

atulsethi

¶48

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶49

Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter ? : Yes / No

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Harjit Singh etc. 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

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

Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab

Iqbal Singh Vs Jagir Singh Dhillon and Ors.

Suraj Bhan Vs M/S Ishaan Electro Industries