Joginder Paul @ Sonu @ Guggu vs State of Punjab

T.P.S. Mann, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 19.7.2000 whereby the Appellant was convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

According to the prosecution, the Appellant had caused indiscriminate chhuri blows to Harish Chander-complainant on 30.6.1997 at 9.00 PM. At that time, Hira Lal, co-accused of the Appellant had caught hold of Harish Chander whereas Om Parkash, co-accused, exhorted the Appellant to kill him. The motive behind the assault was that Gug, sister of the Appellant had a quarrel with Dimpa, a friend of Harish Chander. Dimpa had quarelled with the Appellant a number of times. The Appellant had a suspicion that it was Harish Chander, who was helping Dimpa.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has made a valiant attempt to convince the Court about the innocence of the Appellant. However, after going through the testimony of PW-3 Harish Chander, who had received injuries in the case, the Court is not impressed with the stand taken on behalf of the Appellant. Dr Inderjit Singh Bagga PW-4 had found 7 injuries on the person of Harish Chander. Out of them, injury Nos. 1 and 2 were declared dangerous to life. Whatever delay occurred in lodging of the FIR, its benefit has already been given to Hira Lal and Om Parkash, co-accused of the Appellant, as they stand acquitted already of the charges against them. Therefore, the Court has no other option but to confirm the conviction of the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant then submitted that at the time of the occurrence, the Appellant was a young person of the age of 21 years. He is a first offender. He has already undergone a period of more than one year out of the sentence of seven years imposed upon him. He has been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than thirteen years. Therefore, the remaining sentence of imprisonment of the Appellant be set aside.

Learned State counsel has submitted that as the Appellant had taken the law in his own hands by launching a murderous assault on Harish Chander and caused him as many as 7 injuries, he does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence of imprisonment. However, the State counsel has produced custody certificate as per which, the Appellant has undergone an actual sentence of 11 months and 19 days in jail. It has also been stated therein that neither the convict misused the concession of parole or bail, nor there is any other case pending against him.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the Appellant behind the bars once again for undergoing his remaining sentence of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentence of the Appellant is reduced to that already undergone by him. At the same time, the fine imposed upon the Appellant by the trial Court can be enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-so that the enhanced amount of fine may be paid to Harish Chander-injured/complainant as compensation.

Resultantly, the conviction of the Appellant u/s 307 IPC is maintained. His substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs. 5,000/-imposed upon the Appellant by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine be deposited by the Appellant within four months from today, failing which he shall be required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years. The enhanced amount of fine, on its deposit, be disbursed to Harish Chander-injured/complainant as compensation.

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