Gurcharan Singh alias Channa vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 48SB of 1998 preferred by the appellant through jail.

The appellant faced trial for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution case lies in a narrow compass. Gurcharan Singh appellant and Gurdeep Singh injured were married to two sisters who are daughters of Thakur Singh. The marriage of third daughter of Thakur Singh was fixed for 9.9.1986. The appellant and the injured along with their wives had gone to attend that function. On the night intervening 8th/9th of September, 1986 after attending the arrangements of the marriage, all were asleep. At about 3.00 or 4.00 a.m. Baj Singh P.W.2 heard an alarm emanating from the roof of the house of Thakur Singh. Baj Singh rushed to that place and saw that Gurcharan Singh appellant was causing repeated kirpan blows to Gurdeep Singh on this head, face and other parts of the body. The scene of occurrence was illuminated by an electric bulb which had been temporarily fitted there. Baj Singh intervened to save the injured and tried to catch hold of the appellant, but the latter escaped.

Investigation in the case was conducted. After the conclusion of the same, the appellant was sent up to face trial. Ultimately, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed earlier by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide his judgment/order dated October 3, 1987.

Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal through jail.

I have heard Shri B.S. Sewak, A.P.P. for the State and have carefully perused the record.

There is no scope for interference so far as conviction of the appellant is concerned as the learned trial court gave cogent and valid reasons for recording the same and I have no plausible ground to take a different view than the one taken by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is confirmed.

The only question that falls for determination as to whether interference in the matter of sentence is justified in this case particularly when there is infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The propitiating and mitigating points which lessen the severity of the sentence awarded to the appellant are contained in the order of this Court dated April 6, 1988 which is reproduced hereunder :

"The FIR was registered on 9.9.1986, for an offence having been committed during the night, intervening 8/9.9.1986. The appellant was arrested on 18.9.1986. Copy of the order shows that he was still in custody on 3.10.1987 when he was convicted and sentenced to RI for 4 years. Presumably, the appellant has been in custody since 19.8.1986. He has undergone imprisonment for more than 11/2 years.

xxx xxx xxx xxx"

A bare reading of the order of this Court extracted above shows that the appellant has already undergone sentence of 11/2 years and he is facing the agony of this criminal prosecution since the year 1986, I am also not oblivious of the fact that it is the duty of the Court to assure to the accused speedy trial. The right of the accused to speedy trial flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. If the Court is not able to assure to the accused speedy trial, the Court should atleast show some consideration in the matter of sentence.

Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is slashed to the one already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine is maintained.

The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.

Bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, furnished in the trial Court shall stand discharged.