This High Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant challenging his conviction but allowed a revision to reduce the sentence from four and a half years rigorous imprisonment to three years for the offence under Section 307 IPC.
Sentence reduced from 4 ½ years to 3 years rigorous imprisonment alongside the existing conviction.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-1307-SB-2003 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.02.2014
Gurtej Singh
...... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Varun Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
The appellant faced trial in case bearing FIR No. 6 dated 25.1.1999 Police Station Nathana for offence punishable under Section 307, 450 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and was convicted and sentenced as follows :-
| Under Section(s) | Sen | tence |
|---|---|---|
| Rigorous Imprisonment |
Fine | |
| 450 IPC | Three years | `1000/-. In default of payment of fine further to undergo RI for two months. |
| 307 IPC | Four years and six months |
`1000/-. In default of payment of fine further to undergo RI for two months. |
P.M. As per the prosecution, appellant-Gurtej Singh along with his coaccused entered the house of complainant. On 'Lalkara ' of Nardev
Satyawan 2014.02.18 11:57 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh
CRA-1307-SB-2003 (O&M)
2
Singh (non-appellant), appellant fired short from his .12 bore double barrel gun, which hit on the left side of abdomen of Harbans Singh son of the complainant. Other persons caused injuries to complainant and Harbans Singh.
CRA-1307-SB-2003 (O&M)
3
parties has been allowed and the compensation of ` 1,00,000/- has been allowed to the petitioner to meet the charges of treatment of injured Harbans Singh. The payment of compensation is not a reason in itself to take a lenient view regarding the quantum of sentence, however, keeping in view the fact that the case was registered about 15 years back; the appellant faced trial for more than 4 years and this appeal is also pending for the last more than a decade; there is nothing on file to show that the appellant has any adverse previous antecedents or is a previous convict or that after this occurrence he was involved in any criminal case and the appellant has undergone 1 year 5 months and five days of sentence of imprisonment, the request of learned counsel for the appellant is worth consideration.
13.02.2014 ‘Satyawan’
( SURINDER GUPTA ) JUDGE
Satyawan 2014.02.18 11:57 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to leniency in his sentence considering the delay in trial and lack of previous criminal antecedents.
Whether compensation awarded to the victim can be a ground for reducing the sentence.
Whether the sentence for punishable under Section 307 IPC should be modified.
Gurtej Singh
State of Punjab
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
