Balwinder Singh Petitioner vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—By way of present criminal revision petition, petitioner, Balwinder Singh, resident of Ludhiana, has challenged the judgment dated 20.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by him (petitioner) was dismissed; the challenge has also been made to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.11.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days.

Under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

Rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days.

Under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

Rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

At the admission stage of this Criminal Revision Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press it on merits. However, he submitted that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was on higher side, therefore, notice of motion was issued with regard to the quantum of sentence only.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant, Balwinder Kaur, moved an application to Station House Officer, Police Station, Basti Joshewal, Ludhiana, alleging that she was a working woman. The petitioner used to tease her daily by his obscene gesture and extended threats to her that if she did not maintain friendly relations with him, then she would be burnt by means of acid. The petitioner also used filthy language on her mobile phone. On 13.09.2007, the petitioner stopped the complainant in the way and scuffled with her. On the basis of the above said averments, the case was registered against the petitioner and after investigation, the charge-sheet for his prosecution was submitted by the investigating agency. After framing of charges, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

(1) PW-1 Balwinder Kaur;

(2) PW-2 Shingara Singh;

(3) PW-3 HC Amarjit Singh; and

(4) PW-4 ASI Bhajan Singh

The petitioner was examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the allegations in toto and pleaded his innocence. In defence, he examined the following witnesses:-

(i) DW-1 Jaswinder Singh; and

(ii) DW-2 Rakesh Kumar Sharma.

After taking into consideration every aspect of the case, learned trial court held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo various terms of sentence as has been discussed in the initial part of this judgment.

The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence before the Court of Session by way of an appeal. However, the said appeal was dismissed and hence, the present criminal revision petition.

At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the last five years, the petitioner was facing agony of trial and appeal. He further submitted that though there were some gray areas in the prosecution case, yet he was not extended the benefit of doubt, therefore, the court can still extend the benefit of such short-comings in the prosecution case to the petitioner by reducing the substantive sentence. He further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, then also the petitioner should not have been sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of two years u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel also argued that during the pendency of the trial and appeal, the petitioner was on bail but he did not misuse the said concession. He further submitted that out of the maximum awarded sentence of two years, the petitioner had suffered for more than five months of the substantive sentence, therefore, the substantive sentence should be reduced to the period undergone by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the factual aspect raised by learned counsel for the petitioner but submitted that keeping in view the allegations against the petitioner, he was not entitled to any benefit in the sentence.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the State had produced affidavit of Ravinder Loomba, Superintendent of Police (Prison) Central Jail, Ludhiana, showing the custody period suffered by the petitioner.

Perusal of the affidavit produced by the learned counsel for the State reveals that on 24.07.2012, the petitioner had undergone actual sentence of four months and five days, therefore, at the time of hearing of the arguments of the State, the petitioner had suffered incarceration for five months and approximately twenty days. The affidavit further reveals that the petitioner was neither required nor involved in any other case. The affidavit further reveals that during his incarceration, the petitioner has earned remission for two months and fifteen days which shows that he is maintaining good behaviour during the period being spent in the jail. During the pendency of the trial and appeal, he remained on bail but the said concession was not misused by him in any manner.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence of the petitioner on all counts for which he was held guilty is reduced to the period undergone by him. The fine imposed by the learned court below shall remain undisturbed. He be set at liberty in this case at once if not required in any other case. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of, in the above terms.