Partly allowed

Vijay @ Bablu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2018CRA-S/1503/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The court modified the sentence to match the time already served by the accused. The appellant was ordered to be released upon payment of the imposed fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence modified to period already undergone; order for release upon payment of fine.

Vijay @ Bablu Vs State of Haryana — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

CRA-S-1503-SB of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRA-S-1503-SB of 2018 DATE OF DECISION :- July 05, 2018

Vijay @ Bablu

...Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

¶11

Present :- Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

Accused Vijay @ Bablu faced trial by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on the allegation that on 25.2.2016 at about 9.41 P.M., when complainant Angrejo Devi and her daugher-in-law Saroj were cleaning utensils at the roof near the iron grill then their neighbour Vijay @ Bablu did obscene activities and gave absuses to them in the name of her mother and sister besides uttering cast related remarks. The accused was convicted for offences under Sections 294, 354-A, 509, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶15

1989 and sentenced as follows :-

¶16

Section	Sentence Fine	Sentence in default ofpayment
294 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a Rs.500/-	Simple Imprisonment for a
	period of two months	period of 15 days

¶17

Parvinder Singh 2018.07.10 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

¶19

CRA-S-1503-SB of 2018

¶20

Section	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default ofpayment
354A IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months	Rs.1000/	Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month
509 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months	Rs.1000/	Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month
506 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months	Rs.1000/	Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month
3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989	Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year	Rs.5,000/	Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶21

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶22

He has preferred an appeal before this Court which has been admitted for hearing and recovery of fine was ordered to remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal vide order dated 16.4.2018.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel besides going through the record.

¶24

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant-accused has submitted that he does not challenge the impugned judgment as regards the conviction but has got submissions to make with respect to the sentence part. According to him, the appellant is of young age of 28 years, unmarried and a poor person. He has already undergone total sentence of more than 10 months out of substantive sentence of 1 year awarded to as such leniency be shown to him.

¶25

As per the custody certificate placed on file by the State counsel, the appellant-accused has already undergone the total sentence of 10 months and 2 days which includes remission. Though he is involved in some other criminal cases but in my considered view, ends of justice shall

¶26

Parvinder Singh 2018.07.10 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CRA-S-1503-SB of 2018 3

¶28

be adequately met if sentence of appellant-accused is reduced to one already undergone by him in this case. Therefore, the appeal is accepted partly, inasmuch as the conviction of appellant-accused is upheld. However, regarding sentence the same is modified and he is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him in this case, whereas the fine part is kept as such.

¶29

The appellant, who is stated to be in custody is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, on payment of fine.

¶30

(H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE July 05, 2018 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶31

Parvinder Singh 2018.07.10 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Vijay @ Bablu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay @ Bablu v. State of Haryana

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

Nirmal Singh Vs Gurnam Kaur & Ors.

Suraj Parkash and Anr. Vs Richa Sharma

Amarjit Kaur etc. Vs Mithu Singh and Others

Jagtar Singh and Anr. Vs Gram Panchayat and Ors.

Harpreet Singh Vs M/S Sunbeam Colonisers Pvt. Ltd.

Inderjit Singh Vs Raghbir Singh and Anr.