Partly allowed

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hry

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2014CRR/112/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 498-A IPC, the single-judge High Court bench maintained the conviction but reduced the imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone by petitioners, considering their family circumstances and time served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; conviction under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC upheld.

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hry — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl. Revision No. 112 of 2005 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Revision No. 112 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2014

¶5

Sanjay Kumar and another

......Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioners along with their other co-accused had faced the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short) in FIR No. 153 dated 25.8.2001, registered at Police Station City Dadri. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 4.3.2004 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC. Aggrieved against the said judgment/order of their conviction and sentence, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 22.9.2004. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners.

¶16

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for the

¶17

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.20 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Crl. Revision No. 112 of 2005 (O&M) -2-

¶19

petitioners has submitted that petitioners are not previous convicts and petitioner No. 1 is the only bread earner of the family whereas petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1. Father of petitioner No. 1 has already died during the pendency of the trial.

¶20

A perusal of the custody certificates of the petitioners, placed on record, reveal that petitioner No. 1 Sanjay Kumar has undergone 01 year, 06 months and 28 days of actual sentence out of two years whereas petitioner No. 2 Chhanno Devi has undergone 01 year, 01 month and 27 days of actual sentence out of two years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners to the period already undergone by them.

¶21

Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC is maintained. However, sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶22

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶24

November 19, 2014 Gurpreet

¶25

GURPREET SINGH 2014.11.20 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Surender Vs State of Haryana

Daljit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vishnu Dass Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Kaka Singh @ Rajinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ranvir Pal Singh Vs Mangal Singh