Dismissed

Sanjay v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Feb 2014CRA-S/480/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court maintained the appellant's convictions for outraging modesty and kidnapping a minor girl. The court held that although sentences normally run consecutively, they should run concurrently here due to the appellant's lack of prior record and family dependence.

What did the court decide?

The two substantive sentences of imprisonment (two years under Sec. 354 IPC and four years under Sec. 363 IPC) are ordered to run concurrently.

Sanjay Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal Appeal S-480-SB of 2012 -1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Appeal S-480-SB of 2012 Date of Decision: February 20, 2014

Sanjay

.....Appellant

VERSUS

State of U.T., Chandigarh

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN

¶10

Present : Mr H.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr Hemant Bassi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Union Territory, Chandigarh.

¶12

T.P.S. MANN, J.

¶13

The appellant was tried for offences under Sections 363, 367 and 377 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 10.9.2011, the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, acquitted him of the offences under Sections 367 and 377 IPC. He was, however, convicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He was also convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The period of detention already undergone by him during the investigation, enquiry and trial of the case was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentences awarded to him. Hence, the present appeal.

¶14

According to the prosecution, the appellant used to live on the second floor of the building in a room on rent whereas the complainant, alongwith his wife and two children, including the prosecutrix lived on the ground floor. On 1.1.2010, the complainant after

¶15

Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.26 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

Criminal Appeal S-480-SB of 2012 -2 -

¶17

finishing labour work returned to his house at about 6.00 PM. He was informed by his wife that at about 4.00 PM when she was present outside the house, their daughter, aged five years, was playing there. For sometime the wife of the complainant went inside the house for some work and when she returned after 5/7 minutes, she found her daughter missing. She then went to the second floor of the building and saw the appellant opening the door of the room and pushing her minor daughter out of the same. The appellant hurriedly closed the door. At that time, the daughter of the complainant was weeping loudly. When her mother enquired as to why she was weeping, her daughter told her that the appellant had pricked her vagina with his finger. The wife of the complainant noticed that the ' pajami ' worn by her daughter was stained with blood. She brought her daughter downstairs and kept on waiting for the complainant. She again went to the second floor of the building and knocked at the door of the room occupied by the appellant, who opened the door and was found to be smelling of alcohol. When she talked to him about the occurrence, he started fighting with her and tried to run away. The appellant was brought downstairs where many people had gathered in the meantime. The complainant was also informed about the incident when he returned back home.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction as well as of sentence. However, he has submitted that the trial Court after imposing sentence of imprisonment for two years under Section 354 and four years under Section 363 IPC did not specify about the running of the two sentences of imprisonment as concurrent and as a result thereof, the appellant is required to undergo six

¶19

Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.26 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Criminal Appeal S-480-SB of 2012 -3 -

¶21

years of imprisonment. The appellant is in custody since 2.1.2010 and continues to remain behind the bars despite having been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 1.10.2012 as he had not been in a position to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000/- as directed in the said order. Therefore, by now he has already undergone an actual sentence of more than four years and one month. As both the offences for which the appellant stands convicted were committed in the same incident, the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant on both the counts ought to have been ordered to run concurrently. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for making the two sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

¶22

Learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant by submitting that the appellant had kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was aged 5 years and thereafter, outraged her modesty and thus, the two sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial Court should run consecutively and not run concurrently.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the provisions of Section 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973, it may be noticed that when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict and such punishments would run consecutively i.e. the second after the expiration of the first, unless the Court directs those punishments to run concurrently, meaning thereby, that the appellant is required to first complete the sentence of two years imposed upon him for the offence

¶24

Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.26 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

Criminal Appeal S-480-SB of 2012 -4 -

¶26

under Section 354 IPC and thereafter, to undergo the second sentence of imprisonment for four years imposed for the offence under Section 363 IPC. As a result, the appellant is required to undergo a total sentence of imprisonment of six years. However, as the appellant is not shown to be a previous offender and it is claimed that he has old parents to look-after and his two younger brothers are studying and he is the only bread winner of the family, this Court is of the considered view that the two sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court can be ordered to run concurrently.

¶27

Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 363 IPC is maintained and so also the sentences of imprisonment as well as the fine, alongwith the default clause. However, both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant, one under Section 354 IPC and the other under Section 363 IPC are ordered to run concurrently.

¶28

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶29

February 20, 2014 pds

¶30

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

¶31

Sharma Parmeshwar Dutt 2014.02.26 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sanjay v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kamal Trading Company and Anr. Vs Phuman Singh

Yashpal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jagriti and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dharmender Panwar and 3 Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Hardev Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Karamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.