The Court reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone considering his age and the long delay, directing him to pay compensation to the victim instead.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; appellant directed to pay Rs.10,000 compensation to victim; conviction affirmed with modification.
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.
CRR No. 1155 of 2001
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1155 OF 2001 Date of Decision: July 19, 2012
Nahar Singh and others
... Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate and Ms. Sumanjeet Kaur, Amicus Curiae, for the appellants.
Mr. K.S. Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners - Nahar Singh, Balwant Singh and Smt. Daljit Kaur against judgment dated 11.07.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2000 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh vide which the petitioners have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 467/471/120-B IPC and sentenced them as follows:
Under Section 467 of IPC
R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of fine, the accused shall suffer imprisonment for 15 days.
CRR No. 1155 of 2001
2
Under Section 471 of IPC
R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of fine the accused shall suffer imprisonment for 15 days. Under Section 120-B of IPC
R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500 each and in default of fine the accused shall suffer imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment of the learned Courts below and in view of the ultimate prayer of the petitioners seeking reduction in sentence.
It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 05.07.2012 of this Court, revision petition qua petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 stands already abated and the revision petition remains alive qua petitioner no.1 only.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner – Nahar Singh states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction on merit. He is only aggrieved against the sentence part. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner – Nahar Singh is 76 years old. However, he prays that the sentence of the petitioner be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocles' sword for the last more than twenty years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 1992 and since then a period of more than
CRR No. 1155 of 2001 3
twenty years has elapsed. The petitioner is a first offender and has suffered the ordeal for long period. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that petitioner has already undergone a period of 02 months 14 days out of two years' sentence. However, learned State counsel has pointed out that 14 days parole has been deducted.
Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute these facts. Learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant may be compensated for harassment in lieu of reduction in sentence.
In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been noted above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending petitioner no.1 behind the bars at this point of time as the petitioner is 76 years old and faced ordeal for 20 years.. It is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone and the petitioner can be burdened to pay compensation to the victim/complainant. Therefore, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in the present case. However, petitioner no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the victim within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if not paid then to be recovered as land arrears. The impugned order of sentence and conviction stands affirmed with aforesaid modification.
With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of.
July 19, 2012 vkd
[ Paramjeet Singh ] Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of a 76-year-old first offender, aggrieved after more than 20 years, should be reduced in a fit case.
Whether compensation can be ordered in lieu of sentence reduction.
Whether the appellant can be released on the terms of sentence reduction and payment of compensation.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Nahar Singh
Balwant Singh
Smt. Daljit Kaur
State of Punjab
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
