IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002
Date of Decision: 10.03.2009
Gurmit Singh @ Pamma and another
Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Mr.Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.A.S.Virk, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State
....
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
It was allegation against the petitioners that on 23.10.1995, they
along with on Jagtar Singh @ Babbi, have caused injuries to Sukhdev Singh,
Jagjit Singh and Gurdip Singh.
Vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1998, they were convicted
for commission of offences charged against them. Following sentence was
awarded to them:-
Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 2
(i) Accused Jagtar Singh stands sentenced to undergo R.I.
for the period of one year for the offence under Section
326 IPC and he is further burdened with Rs.400/- as fine
and in default of payment of fine, accused will further
undergo R.I. for one month more. Accused Gurmit
Singh and Malkit Singh stands sentenced to undergo R.I.
for one year each for the offence under Section 326/34
IPC and to pay fine of Rs.400/- each and in default of
payment of fine each accused will further undergo R.I.
for one month more.
(ii) Accused Jagtar Singh further stands sentenced for the
offence under Section 325 IPC to undergo R.I. for 9
months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default of
payment of fine, he will further undergo R.I. for 15 days.
His co-accused namely Gurmit Singh and Malkit Singh
stands sentenced for the offence under Section 325/34
IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months each accused and to
pay fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of
fine each accused will further undergo R.I. for 15 days
more.
(iii) Accused Jagtar Singh further stands sentenced for the
offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for six
months, his co-accused namely Gurmit Singh and Malkit
Singh sentenced under Section 324/34 IPC to undergo
R.I. for six months.
Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 3
(iv) Accused Malkit Singh stands sentenced for the offence
under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months
and his co-accused Gurmit Singh and Jagtar Singh
stands sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under
Section 324/34 IPC.
(v) Further accused Malkit Singh stands sentenced for the
offence under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for three
months and his co-accused Gurmit Singh and Jagtar
Singh are sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months
each for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC.
(vi) Accused Gurmit Singh stands sentenced for the offence
under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months
and his co-accused Malkit Singh and Jagtar Singh stands
sentenced under Section 324/34 IPC to undergo R.I. for
six months.
They went in appeal, wherein they were acquitted so far as
commission of offence under Section 326 IPC is concerned, however,
conviction under Sections 325, 324, 323/34 IPC was maintained vide
judgment dated 1.4.2002. Hence, this revision petition.
FIR was recorded at the instance of Jagjit Singh (PW1). In his
statement he has deposed as under:-
“that he is resident of village Akalgarh and doing the service in
army. They are three brothers and doing farming work jointly.
Yesterday night i.e. on 23.10.95 at about 8.00/ 9.00 Gurdip
Singh son of Kaur Singh Mistry came at the house of the
Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 4complainant for doing white wash in their house. Complainant
further stated that his elder brother Sukhdev Singh accompanied
the above said Gurdip Singh to drop him at his house. When the
brother of the complainant namely Sukhdev Singh and Gurdip
Singh reached near the house of Babbi Singh son of Jit Singh
majbi, there Babbi Singh, Pamma Singh and Geeta Singh all
sons of Jeet Singh were standing near their house and of
Mander Singh having Gandasas and dangs. On seeing the
brother of the complainant accused Babbi Singh extorted
Lalkara by saying that today Sukhdev Singh should not go
escaped. He should be taught lesson for falsely implicating in
theft case. Complainant further stated that on hearing the
lalkara he also ran to the place of occurrence. He stated that in
the meantime accused Babby Singh gave gandas blow towards
the head of Sukhdev Singh which hit on the right side of his
head. Pamma Singh gave blow with his gandasa blow towards
Sukhdev Singh and in defence Sukhdev Singh raised his left arm
and the blow of gandasa hit on his left arm. Gurdip Singh
started raising noise by saying NA MARO NA MARO and fell on
Sukhdev Singh. Complainant further stated that he also fell on
Sukhdev Singh to rescue him. Complainant further stated that
when they were lying on Sukhdev Singh, accused Geeta Singh
gave blow with dang on the arm and accused Babbi Singh and
Gurmit Singh gave blow on head which hit on the left side of his
head. Complainant further stated that when they were rescuing
Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 5them also the accused gave other injuries with their weapons on
the person of Sukhdev Singh. He further stated that if they have
not rescued his brother Sukhdev Singh accused might have
caused more injuries. Accused ran away with their weapons.”
After recording FIR, the investigating officer went to the spot.
In the meantime, the injured were medico-legally examined by
Dr.M.L.Aswani (PW4).
On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for
trial. The petitioners -accused were charge sheeted, to which, they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced six witnesses and also
brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. However, they
led no evidence in defence.
On conclusion of evidence as produced by the parties, the trial
Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as found mentioned in earlier
part of this order. Petitioners partly succeeded in appeal.
At the time of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that main accused, namely, Jagtar Singh @ Babbi, who was
substantively punished for commission of offences under Sections 326, 325,
324 IPC, has already undergone sentence awarded to him. The petitioners
were convicted and sentenced for the above said offences with the aid of
Section 34 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioners has failed to convince this Court so
far as merits of the case are concerned. Vivid eye witness account has been
given by Jagjit Singh (PW1), Sukhdev Singh (PW2) and Gurdip Singh
Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 6
(PW3). Oral testimony has been corroborated by Dr.M.L.Aswani, who has
medico legally examined the above said injured witnesses.
Otherwise also, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Raj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611, has opined that in
criminal revision, scope to interfere in the judgments passed by the Courts
below, is very limited.
Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioners has
contended that the petitioners were the first offenders. After their conviction
in this case, they have not involved themselves into any other crime of the
like nature. Now they are living life of disciplined citizens. He has further
stated that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1995. The petitioners
are facing criminal prosecution for the last more than 13 years. In the process
they have suffered mentally and financially as well. He has further stated that
the petitioners and the injured were co-villagers. By this time, the parties
might have forgotten about the sad incident and if at this stage, they are sent
behind the bars, it will revive old enmity between them and will not be
conducive for peace and harmony in the village. He prayed that leniency be
shown to the petitioners, who are young and the only bread winners for their
families.
After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that
purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to punish an erring
individual but also to give an opportunity to him to reform himself. It is
apparent from the records that the petitioners are suffering agony of pending
litigation since 1996. They were young at the time when accident had taken
place and the only bread winners of their families. They have already
Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 7
undergone more than 4 months of actual sentence. Contention of counsel for
the petitioners that if at this stage, they are sent behind the bars, not only they
but their entire families will suffer, appears to be correct.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh
versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, observed as
under:-
“Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive
and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of
committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred
from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is
meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his
action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful
social being. In determining the question of proper punishment
in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability
of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of
showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the
case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a
balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of
the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a
hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at
the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent
punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not
be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has
to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform
himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and
make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity
Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 8to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the
facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a
hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at
large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the
permissible limits of law.”
In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal 1998
(1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18
years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced
the sentence to the period already undergone.
Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this
Court in Stae of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh 2002(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600. In
that case, in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted, however,
they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in
view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981.
To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh
v. State of Punjab 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467.
Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and
ratio of judgments mentioned above, conviction of the petitioners is upheld,
however, sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the already
undergone by them.
With above mentioned modification, this revision petition
stands disposed of.
10.03.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge