Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

K.C. Puri, J.—The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by Shri Sarabjit Singh Dhaliwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 05.11.2008 passed by Shri A. S. Shergill, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout, was dismissed, while reducing the sentence from 03 years to 01 year.

Briefly stated, SHO, P.S. City Malout send the accused to stand trail for an offence punishable under Sections 326/324 IPC.

The law was set in motion by recording the statement of complainant-Sukhjinder Kaur that she was married to Balwinder Singh 13/14 years ago. Her husband is in the habit of consuming Poppy husk and intoxicating tablets, due to which he remain mentally upset and suspicious towards her regarding coming of unrelated males to her. He gets angry out of suspicion whenever any person passes from front of their house. On 26.05.2002 at about 5:30 A.M, when she was serving tea to her father-in-law and her mother-in-law sitting in the courtyard, then her husband asked her to come inside. On her refusal, he gave Kappa blow on the backside of her head and on the right hand side of the face and right arm, besides other portion of the body. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused in Court.

On presentation of the challan, copies of same were supplied to him free of costs, as envisaged u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

The learned trial Court framed charge under Sections 326/324 IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined Dr. Sunil Bansal, Medical Officer as PW-1, Dr. Simmi Garg as PW-2, Dr. Kuldeep Goyal as PW-3, Sukhjinder Kaur as PW-4, Gurmail Kaur as PW-5, Mander Singh as PW-6, SI Kewal Singh as PW-7, HC Gurcharan Singh as PW-8, Amar Singh as PW-9 and closed the evidence.

Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he pleaded false implication.

The petitioner did not choose to lead any evidence in his defence.

The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found the accused guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 326/324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 days.

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 05.11.2008, the petitioner/accused filed the first appeal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the parties filed quashing of the FIR vide CRM No. 28273 of 2010 titled as, "Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another" wherein the following observations were made :

Therefore, in case of compromise during the pendency of the appeal, the proceedings are not normally to be quashed and the fact that the parties have compromised their dispute is a factor, which is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing, in case a finding of guilt is recorded and the appellants are convicted for the offences attributed to them.

In the above-noted circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may pursue his remedies in accordance with law before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar where his appeal is pending.

In case, he is found guilty and the order of the conviction is to be upheld, the fact that the matter has been compromised, would be circumstances, to be taken into consideration for the purpose of, sentencing him, as such prayed that in case the court upheld the judgment of the trial court, then prayed to release the accused/ appellant on probation.

The Appellate Court considering such observations upheld the conviction but the sentence was reduced to one year instead of 3 years, vide judgment dated 25.08.2011.

The judgment dated 05.11.2008 passed by JMIC, Malout and judgment dated 25.08.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Mukatsar Sahib, have been challenged in the present revision petition.

As per the conviction slip filed by learned State counsel today in Court, the petitioner has undergone incarnation for a period of 1 month and 9 days as on 04.10.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon authority "Satya Narain vs. State of Haryana" 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 97, and on the strength of same, he has contended that the conviction recorded by both the courts below be set-aside, on the basis of compromise. However, that authority is distinguishable from the present case, as in that case the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C were not resorted whereas in the present case, the same have been resorted and the matter has already been decided by this Court.

The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute was between the husband and wife. They have two children, out of which one is a daughter studying in B.A Part-II and another is son who is suffering from paralysis by birth. So, in these circumstances, the whole family, including the complainant, would suffer. As the parties are living together, so the prayer has been made for reduction in sentence.

Consequently, the petition stands accepted. The judgments of both the Courts below stand upheld but the sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 5000/-before the District Legal Services Authority, Sri Mukatsar Sahib. The petitioner be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Disposed of.