Criminal appeals challenging conviction and sentence for dacoity. Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to time already undergone in custody; fine条款 maintained.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone by appellants; fine maintained.
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.
CRA-S-883-SB of 2002
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
(1)
Crl. Appeal-S No.883-SB of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 06, 2014.
Jatinder and another
..........APPELLANT(s).
VERSUS
State of Haryana
........RESPONDENT(s).
(2)
Crl. Appeal-S No.953-SB of 2002 (O&M)
Om Pal
..........APPELLANT(s).
VERSUS
State of Haryana
........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate for appellants Jatinder and Sanjay.
Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate for appellant Om Pal.
Mr. Deepak Jindal, D.A.G. Haryana.
SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two appeals
arising out of judgment of conviction dated 14.05.2002 and order of sentence
dated 16.05.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in
Mehta Sachin 2014.03.14 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-883-SB of 2002
-2-
case bearing FIR No.332 dated 15.09.1999 registered at Police Station Gharaunda, for offences punishable under Sections 399/402 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Appellants-Jatinder, Sanjay and Om Pal were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, whereas appellants Jatinder and Om Pal were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.
Appellants Jatinder, Sanjay and Om Pal :-
| Conviction for offence | Se | ntence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under Section | Rigorous Imprisonment | Fine | |
| 399 IPC | Four years each | Rs.500/- payment simple fifteen da |
each in default of of fine, to undergo imprisonment for ys. |
| 402 IPC | Four years each | Rs.500/- payment simple fifteen da |
each in default of of fine, to undergo imprisonment for ys. |
Appellants Jatinder and Om Pal :-
| Conviction for offence | Se | ntence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under Section | Rigorous Imprisonment | Fine | |
| 25 Arms Act, 1959 | Six months each | --- |
Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.1999, police party headed by Sub Inspector Sajjan Kumar was present near Bus Stand Gharaunda, when they received a secret information that on the eastern side of G.T. Road, Panipat near mile-stone 'Delhi-102' , 5/6 persons armed with deadly weapons, were present in a Kotha and planning to commit dacoity. A raiding party was prepared and independent witness Suresh Kumar was associated in the raiding party. On reaching near the Kotha , Sub
Mehta Sachin 2014.03.14 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-883-SB of 2002
-3-
Inspector Sajjan Kumar heard the conversation of the persons present inside who were planning to commit dacoity at a newly constructed Petrol Pump on G.T. Road. As per the plan, appellants Om Pal and Jatinder will shoot anyone resisting the attempt to commit dacoity. The police party succeeded in apprehending three of the persons who had assembled in that Kotha while two other managed to escape on their motorcycle. They were later on apprehended and challan against appellants and other two accused namely Rajinder son of Karesan and Sanjay son of Ram Chand, was presented.
The trial Court acquitted co-accused Rajinder and Sanjay son of Ram Chand while the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, appellants Om Pal and Jatinder were also convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that appellants Jatinder and Sanjay have already undergone two years eleven months and twenty one days of actual imprisonment while appellant Om Pal has already undergone two years three months and twenty days of actual imprisonment. He has further submitted that the appellants do not challenge their conviction as recorded by learned trial Court and prayed only for leniency in the quantum of sentence as the appellants are first convicts and sole bread earner of their respective families. They have further submitted that if the remissions allowed to the prisoners are added in the period of their imprisonment, they have almost completed the sentence awarded to them in this case.
Mehta Sachin 2014.03.14 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-883-SB of 2002
-4-
Learned State counsel has placed on file the custody certificates of appellants. Custody certificates of appellants Sanjay and Jatinder show that they have already undergone two years eleven months and twenty one days of actual imprisonment, whereas custody certificate of Om Pal shows that he has undergone two years three months and twenty days of actual imprisonment The period of imprisonment mentioned in the custody certificates do not include any remissions. There is nothing on the file or in the custody certificates to show that accused are involved in any other case or they are previous convicts.
As the learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the conviction of appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 399/402 IPC and 25 Arms Act, the same is maintained. However, the period of imprisonment awarded is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The fine, if not deposited so far, be deposited failing which the appellants shall be taken into custody to undergo the sentence awarded to them in lieu of non-payment of fine.
Disposed of accordingly.
March 06, 2014. Sachin M.
( SURINDER GUPTA ) JUDGE
Mehta Sachin 2014.03.14 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sentence warrants reduction having regard to time already undergone in custody.
Whether fine is maintainable in the absence of deposit.
Jatinder and another
Om Pal
State of Haryana
Surindra Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
