Mahanda vs State of Punjab

H.S. Bhalla, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.4.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby

he convicted the Appellants under Sections 332 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Mahanda and Baldev were sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for six months each u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default

thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. Further, both the Appellants were

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each u/s 332 of the Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-

each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. However, accused Tarsem was

acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 148/307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel, at the very outset, contends that he does not challenge the conviction of the Appellants on merits and confines his arguments

only on the point of quantum of sentence. Learned Counsel further submits that a case under Sections 307/332/353/224/225/148 and 149 of the

Indian Penal Code was registered against the Appellants in the year 1994. The present Appellants were convicted by the order of Additional

Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 17.4.1995. Thereafter, they filed an appeal before this Court in the year 1995 and now a considerable period of 13

years has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence. Learned Counsel further submits that during this period, the Appellants have been

facing mental agony of the protracted trial and a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over their heads since then. Learned Counsel

prays that a lenient view be taken against the Appellants since they are labourers by profession and they have already suffered imprisonment for

two months during the trial of the Case as also after their conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Learned Counsel has further

submitted that keeping in view the facts and mitigating circumstances of the Appellants, some leniency by way of mercy be shown in the matter of

sentence against the Appellants and they be released on probation of good conduct.

Since the prayer made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has been restricted only on the quantum of sentence, therefore, in

order to avoid repetition in the judgment, I do not consider it necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case, since they have been narrated in the

judgment of the trial Court in details

I have considered the submissions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. It is no doubt true that on account of the

pendency of the appeal for a long period, the Appellants have been facing mental agony persistently for the last 13 years, but keeping in view the

nature of the offence and the circumstances under which the offence was committed and also keeping in view the age factor of one of the

Appellants, namely, Mahanda, who must have now crossed over 68 years of age since he was stated to be 55 years of age at the time of passing

the order of conviction by the trial Court, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a lenient view is taken against the Appellants.

Accordingly, taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence against the Appellants, I direct that conviction against the Appellants, namely, Mahanda

and Baldev under Sections 332 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code shall be maintained and they are ordered to be released on probation of good

conduct for a period of one year under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. During this period, they shall keep peace and be of good

behaviour, In case of any default, they will be sent back in custody to receive the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court.

Appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.