Kuldip Singh vs State of Punjab

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.02.2001 by which Kuldip Singh, accused-Appellant was convicted u/s 324 IPC. The learned trial court sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-or in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

Brief facts of the case are that Amrik Singh, PW2 was going to his house after his duty was over on 14.02.1998 at about 6.30 p.m. On the way Sukha caught hold of him and Kala took out a knife from his pocket and gave a stab blow in his right abdomen. He raised alarm, as a result of which Surjit Singh, father of the complainant and Lakhwinder Singh came to the spot. They rescued the complainant from clutches of the accused. The accused ran away from the spot and the injured was brought to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where he was medically examined. The motive behind the attack was that accused Kala had installed a Bhathi (hearth) in the street for frying Pakauras, which was removed by the police on the complaint of Amrik Singh, PW2, the injured. On the statement Ex-PE of the injured, an FIR Ex-PE/2 was recorded in the police station. After completion of investigation Kuldip Singh-Appellant was sent up for trial alongwith other co-accused.

The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. Accused-Kuldip Singh was charged u/s 307 IPC, whereas his co-accused Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and Swaran Singh @ Kala were charged u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined injured Amrik Singh as PW-2 and Lakhwinder Singh as PW-3 a witness to the occurrence. The prosecution also examined Dr. Gurmanjit Rai as PW-1, Dr. Kulwant Rai as PW-5 and Dr. Rajan Bhatti as PW-6 to prove the medical evidence. ASI, Lal Singh was examined as PW-7 being the investigating officer.

In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded that some unknown persons caused injuries to Amrik Singh-PW2 and they were falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion. However no evidence was lead in defence. After trial the accused was convicted and sentenced as referred above.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. However in the alternative he submits that the incident is of the year 1998 and keeping in view re-formative trend of modern penology a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the Appellant has undergone 9 months and 20 days as an under trial and after conviction. He has already suffered much.

Learned Counsel for the State has contended that the applicant does not deserve any sympathetic tilt with regard to quantum of sentence.

8.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the evidence on record.

In Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), , it has been observed as under:

Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such a case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law.

In Tarak Nath Singh and Anr. v. State of West Bengal 1998 (1) SCC 587, their Lordships of Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

Similar is the opinion expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh 2002(2) RCR 600. In that case in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted. However, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981.

Although the impugned judgment is not assailed on merits by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, yet I have rescanned the entire evidence minutely. I do not find any lacuna in the prosecution case. Consequently, the conviction as recorded by the trial Court is required to be re-affirmed.

However, I find force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants with regard to quantum of sentence. They have already faced the agony of protracted trial for more than 12 years. Sending the Appellants to Jail once again at this juncture, in my view, would be hard step. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the Appellants u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code stands maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine of the Appellant is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-, besides the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court, which shall be deposited by them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amount so deposited by the Appellants shall be paid to the complainant-injured as compensation.

In case of non-payment of amount of enhanced fine within prescribed time, the present appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

With the above modification/direction, the present appeal stands disposed of.