Crl. Appeal No.134-SB of 1996 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No. 134-SB of 1996
Date of Decision: 7 - 1 - 2009
Rajbir .....Appellant
v.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Ms.Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for
Mr.Matwinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL)
The present appeal has been filed by Rajbir aggrieved against
the judgment and order of sentence of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.
Vide his judgment and order dated 12/13.10.1995 the Additional Sessions
Judge had convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections
395/396/397 IPC. The appellant was convicted as under:-
“….I sentence accused Rajbir to under go rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.200/- under Section 395, read with section 397 I.P.C. In
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo imprisonment for
one month. I also sentence him to under go rigorous
Crl. Appeal No.134-SB of 1996 [2]imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.200/- under section 396 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine,
he shall under go imprisonment for a period of one month.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. However, the period
during which the accused remained in custody in this case be
set off against the sentences awarded today. ….”
Counsel for the appellant has stated that minimum sentence
which can be awarded by the Court under Section 397 IPC is 7 years.
Counsel has stated that she will not be in a position to contest the conviction
as there is sufficient evidence against the appellant. She has stated that PW-
2 Murti had stated that a dacoity had taken place in the village and she
could identify the appellant. Her testimony has been corroborated by PW-3
Smt.Kamla and PW-4 Lal Chand. Counsel state that in the present case,
occurrence had taken place in the year 1975. About 34 years are going to
elapse. She has stated that in case the sentence awarded under Section 396
IPC is reduced from ten years to seven years, she will be satisfied as
appellant has already undergone 6 years and 6 months of sentence.
Taking into consideration that appellant has suffered protected
trial of 34 years and further submission of the counsel that appellant has not
committed any offence after he was released on bail on 8.3.1996, I deem it
appropriate to reduce the sentence under Section 396 IPC from ten years to
seven years. The appellant when the sentence was pronounced by the Court
had stated that he has got three children and those children may be of
marriageable age. Therefore, the sentence awarded under Section 396 IPC
is reduced from ten years to seven years, whereas the sentence awarded
under Sections 395 read with Section 397 IPC is maintained.
Crl. Appeal No.134-SB of 1996 [3]
With aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed off.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
January 7, 2008. JUDGE
RC