Revision petition against dismissed appeal in burning case. Court affirmed conviction but reduced sentence to period already undergone and directed payment of compensation.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; compensation of Rs. 15,000 directed to be paid.
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.
Crl. R. No. 24 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. R. No. 24 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.2.2014
Deshmukh and another
................Petitioners vs.
State of Haryana
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. D.K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Sh. Amit Kaushik, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
K.C. Puri, J.
This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 4.1.2007 passed by Sh. Sant Parkash, Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which the appeal preferred by the present petitioners against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2004 passed by Sh. B. Diwakar, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, in FIR No. 249 dated 3.11.2001 under Section 435 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Narnaul, was dismissed.
The facts of case as gathered from the record are that
Chugh Banita 2014.03.06 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. R. No. 24 of 2007 -2-
complainant Lala Ram s/o Gopi Sahai, resident of village Mandi, submitted an application to SHO PS Sadar, Narnaul on 3.11.2001 stating that he used to reside at the tubewell situated outside the village. A civil suit was pending in the Court between complainant and Dunga Ram s/o Sheo Ram r/o Mandi and Raj Pal s/o Ram Partap r/o village Mandi. On that account Sheo Ram and Raj Pal were having enmity with the complainant. Sumer Singh, Mahender, Bablu are the nephews of Dunga Ram, whereas Desh Mukh and Raja Ram are the sons of Sumer Singh. As per allegations of complainant, these persons were quarrelsome by nature. The Court appointed a local commissioner in civil suit pending between the parties. On 2.11.2001 the local commissioner came in the village to visit the tubewell. On that account the accused felt annoyed and set the chapper of the complainant on fire at 8.30 P.M. It is further alleged that before this occurrence also the accused raised dispute with the complainant at many occasions. In the month of March complainant was coming to village after attending the court peshi, then accused manhandled him and in the month of February accused abducted his son with intention to kill him, regarding which report was made to the police. On the complaint made by the complainant, formal FIR was registered.
After completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
Charge under Section 435 IPC was framed against both the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Chugh Banita 2014.03.06 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. R. No. 24 of 2007 -3-
The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW-1 Lala Ram, PW-2 Smt. Lali, PW-3 Pawan Kumar Photographer, PW-4 ASI Sher Singh, PW-5 MHC Om Parkash and closed the prosecution evidence.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them to which they denied and pleaded false implication.
The accused were called upon to lead their defence evidence. They opted to lead evidence in their defence but later on accused closed their defence evidence without adducing any evidence in defence.
The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence found the accused petitioners guilty under Section 435 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2004 passed by Sh. B. Diwakar, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. Both the accused preferred appeal against the said judgment dated 19.11.2004 and Sh. Sant Parkash, Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 4.1.2007 dismissed the said appeal.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 19.11.2004 passed by Sh. B. Diwakar, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul and judgment dated 4.1.2007 passed by Sh.
Chugh Banita 2014.03.06 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. R. No. 24 of 2007 -4-
Sant Parkash, Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below, but has submitted that petitioners are not the previous convicts, nor have been involved in any other case. As per the custody certificate, both the petitioners have already undergone incarceration for a period of 20 days. So, prayer has been made for taking a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.
I have considered the said submission and have also gone through the record of the case.
The offence complained of is punishable with sentence upto 7 years. It is not the case of the prosecution that chhapar which was put on fire by the petitioners, was inhabited. As per the custody certificate, they are not the previous convicts, nor they are involved in any other case. They have already undergone incarceration for a period of 20 days. The occurrence relates to the year 2001, i.e. more than 12 years back. So, considering all the circumstances, the conviction of the petitioners, as recorded by the trial Court, stands affirmed. However, sentence of the petitioners stands reduced to the period already undergone. Each of the petitioner is directed to pay compensation to the tune of `15,000/- to the complainant, in case he is alive. In case of the death of the complainant, the said amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the complainant. The said amount shall be deposited within two months from today, failing which the petitioners
Chugh Banita 2014.03.06 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. R. No. 24 of 2007 -5-
shall undergo the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for
compliance.
( K.C. Puri ) 20.2.2014 Judge chugh
Chugh Banita 2014.03.06 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow revision petition seeking lenient view on sentence given petitioners had already undergone 20 days incarceration for the 2001 offence.
Whether to modify the sentence to period already undergone and direct payment of compensation.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Deshmukh and another
State of Haryana
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
