IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Revision No. 495 of 1995
Date of Decision: 27.7.2009
Arur Singh.
....... Petitioner through Shri
Preet Inder Singh
Ahluwalia,Advocate.
Versus
The State of Punjab.
....... Respondent through Shri
B.B.S.Teji,Assistant
Advocate General.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
This revision petition is directed against judgment dated
3.7.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as
`the appellate Court’) by which the appeal of the petitioner preferred
against his conviction and sentence awarded to him by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura (described hereinafter as `the trial Court’) vide
judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 25.4.1994, was dismissed.
The petitioner along with his wife,Smt.Kuldeep Kaur, was
challaned for committing offences punishable under Sections 452, 325, 324,
323, 34 of the I.P.C. on the allegations that they had inflicted injuries to
Crl.Revision No.495 of 1995
-2-
….
the complainant on 24.11.1988. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was
convicted & sentenced under Sections 452, 325, 324 and 323 of the I.P.C.,
whereas his wife, Smt.Kuldeep Kaur, was acquitted of the charges by giving
her benefit of doubt. He was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for the offences under Sections
452 and 325 of the I.P.C., the sentence awarded for the offences under
Sections 324 and 323 of the I.P.C. was nine months and three months’
rigorous imprisonment, respectively. However, all the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was
heard and dismissed by the appellate Court.
Hence, this revision petition.
At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
he is not assailing the impugned judgment on merits and his contention is
confined only to the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1988 and
even though the weapon used was a kulhari, yet, the injuries sustained by
the complainant were simple. He further pointed out that no useful purpose
would be served by requiring the petitioner to undergo his remaining part of
the sentence at this stage in view of the fact that he would have been
advanced in age by now and the occurrence is an old one. He also
contended that the petitioner has already undergone one month’s
imprisonment out of the sentence awarded to him.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the
Crl.Revision No.495 of 1995
-3-
….
one already undergone by him. In support of his contentions/ submission,
he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Kharak Singh and
others Versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 766; Sadhu Singh
Versus State of Punjab, 2004(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 108; Sukha Singh and
others Versus State of Punjab, 2004(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 519 and Darshan
Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 212.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that
the petitioner had inflicted injuries to the complainant by a kulhari and,
therefore, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence.
I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have
gone through the record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Concededly, the occurrence took place in the year 1988 and
thus, the petitioner has faced the agony of criminal proceedings for the last
almost twenty one years. The injuries inflicted by him on the person of the
complainant were also found to be simple in nature. The occurrence seems
to have taken place at the heat of the moment without any pre-meditated
intent.
Having regard to the aforesaid and keeping in view the
observations made in the judgments referred to above, the sentence awarded
to the petitioner is reduced to that of already undergone by him subject to
the condition that he will pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- which will be paid to
the complainant as compensation. This amount is directed to be deposited
before the trial Court within a period of three months, failing which the
Crl.Revision No.495 of 1995
-4-
….
sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court
shall automatically stand revived. On his doing so, the amount shall be
disbursed to the complainant after due verification.
The petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
July 27,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge