Partly allowed

Bintu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2018CRR/2690/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition under Section 411 IPC. While affirming the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to 18 months, considering the petitioner was a sole bread-earner and had spent over four years in custody.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from rigorous imprisonment for 3 years to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months.

Bintu Vs State of Haryana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CRR-2690-2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Criminal Revision No.2690 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 25, 2018

¶5

Bintu

¶6

......PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryana

¶9

....RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

Mr. Amrik Narwal, D.A.G., Haryana.

¶13

¶14

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 29.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner-convict against the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2015 and order of sentence dated 21.07.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Guhla vide which the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

¶16

As per the case of prosecution, motorcycle of complainant Kesh Pal, who had gone to Court Complex, Guhla on 15.05.2014 was stolen. During investigation of the case bearing FIR No.320 dated SACHIN MEHTA 2018.09.26 17:38 20.12.2014 registered at Police Station, Pundri, accused Naresh @ Mani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶17

CRR-2690-2016

¶18

-2-

¶19

suffered disclosure statement that petitioner had come to him to sell stolen motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-09-B-2481 but he refused to purchase the same. The petitioner was apprehended and motorcycle recovered on his disclosure statement, was taken into possession.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission only for taking lenient view on the quantum of sentence without challenging the conviction of the petitioner on merits. He has argued that perusal of the custody certificate shows that petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2015. Earlier he was undergoing sentence awarded to him in case bearing FIR No.210 dated 28.11.2011 registered at Police Station, Cheeka, Kaithal, which was completed on 06.04.2018 and thereafter his sentence in this case was started. He has submitted that petitioner is sole bread-earner of his family and suffered for the offence committed by him by undergoing sentence for a long period of more than 3½ years, as such, lenient view be taken and sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶21

Custody certificate shows that in this case, petitioner has undergone imprisonment of total 10 months 13 days as on 23.09.2018. However, he has been convicted and sentenced in a number of other cases as well.

¶22

Keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that petitioner is in custody for the last about 4 years (he is in custody since 10.10.2012 when he was sent to Jail in case bearing

¶23

FIR No.500 of 2011 registered at Police Station, Nissing, Karnal for the SACHIN MEHTA 2018.09.26 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document offence punishable under Section 392 IPC) and the nature of offence, I am HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶24

CRR-2690-2016

¶25

-3-

¶26

of the opinion that the ends of justice will be fully met, if the sentence of imprisonment of petitioner is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for 3 years to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months.

¶27

As a sequel of my above discussion, this revision petition is partly accepted. Conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment of petitioner is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for 3 years to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. Intimation in this regard be sent to Superintendent, District Prison, Karnal (Haryana).

¶28

( SURINDER GUPTA ) September 25, 2018 JUDGE Sachin M. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶29

SACHIN MEHTA 2018.09.26 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Bintu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bintu 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

Madan Lal Mahajan Vs M/S Shiroga International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Des Raj Bugga and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Jag Mohan Vs State of Haryana

Bintu Vs State of Haryana

Sudhir Nagar Vs Deepika Didwania

Sudhir Nagar Vs Deepika Didwania