Jagir Singh and Another vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The appellants, alongwith Charan Singh, were named as accused for causing injuries to Hardyal Singh on 9.3.1987. On the basis of statement made by Hardyal Singh injured, FIR No. 167 dated 12.3.1987 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar for offences under Sections 307/326/324/34 IPC. After completion of the investigation and presentation of final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., the Ilaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After commitment of the case, accused Charan Singh died. The appellants were then charged for offences under Sections 307/326/324/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence brought on the record by the prosecution as well as by the defence, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar held that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the appellants for offence u/s 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Jagir Singh-appellant was also held guilty u/s 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, whereas Baldev Singh-appellant was held guilty u/s 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The aforementioned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 19.12.1992 has been challenged by the appellants in the present appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has not assailed the conviction of the appellants but has stated that the occurrence in question had taken place more than 23 years back. Both the appellants remained in jail as under trial for one month each. Upon their conviction and sentence by the trial Court, they were taken into custody as they could not deposit the fine imposed upon them. They were granted the concession of bail on 10.2.1993 and recovery of fine was also ordered to be stayed. As such, each of the appellants has already undergone a period of three months out of the sentence of one year imposed upon them. The appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution since long. Even their appeal has remained pending in this Court for the last more than 17 years. Therefore, the substantive sentence of the appellants be reduced.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellants by submitting that as a result of the assault committed by the appellants and their co-accused Charan Singh, Hardyal Singh suffered seven injuries on his person, out of which two injuries were declared grievous in nature. Therefore, none of the appellants deserves any concession in the matter of sentence.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants behind the bars, once again, so as to serve their remaining sentences of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them.

Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial Court is upheld. However, their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. The fine, alongwith its default clause, as imposed by the trial Court, is maintained.

Except for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment, as indicated above, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.