Manjit Singh @ Mita and Another vs State of Punjab

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The accused-Appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the

''trial Court'') for the offences punishable under Sections 324/326/450/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the case bearing FIR

No. 69 dated 14.9.1997, registered at Police Station Nangal on the allegations that they along with their co-accused Gurdip Singh (who has been

declared to be proclaimed offender) inflicted injuries on the person of complainant - Gurmit Chand when he had come to meet his sister and was

staying there.

The learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide judgment and order dated 11/12.10.2000, (hereinafter referred

to as the ""impugned judgment"") convicted the accused-Appellants for the commission of offence under Sections 450/506/326/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced them as under:

Name of accused Section Sentence Fine In default of

payment of fine

Lakhvir Singh and 506 IPC RI for 2 - -

Manjit Singh @ Kuba years

-do- 450 IPC RI for 2 Rs. 2,000/- each RI for 4 months

years each

-do- 326/34 IPC RI 3 Rs. 3,000/- each RI for 6 months

years each

All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment/order of conviction/sentence, the Appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court.

The present appeal was admitted on 6.11.2000 and the Appellants were ordered to be released on bail by this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants does not assail the impugned judgment/order of conviction/sentence on merits and instead has prayed for

reduction of sentence of the Appellants to the period already undergone after taking a lenient view. He then contends that the present occurrence

relates to the year 1997 and by now the Appellants have faced the agony of protracted trial for more than 13 years and have not mis-used the

concession of bail.

Learned Counsel for the State has filed the custody certificate, which is taken on record, and contended that the Appellants do not deserve any

sympathetic tilt with regard to quantum of sentence.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

In Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2000 (3) R.C.R. 561 : 2000 (3) SC 561 (SC), Hon''ble the Supreme Court has observed that in

appropriate cases, reformative approach is required to be adopted.

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 the Division Bench 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.

To the same effect, is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) RCR (Crl.) 467.

Reliance is also placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in Mohammad alias Biliya Vs. State of Rajasthan, , wherein in a case u/s 304. Part II

of the Indian Penal Code, leniency was shown to the accused in that case and they were ordered to be released on probation.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Pal Jolly Vs. State of Punjab, , has observed as under:

Even so on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we do not feel persuaded to let off the Appellant with an imposition of fine only. We,

however, thought that sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this case. We were informed at the Bar and

an affidavit sworn by the Appellant''s wife was also filed before us to the effect that the Appellant was in jail for about nine months as an under trial

prisoner and for about four months after conviction. Thus, he has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about a year and a month. The

occurrence took place more than a decade ago. The Appellant had to pass this long ordeal all these years both mentally and financially.

Considering, therefore, the totality of the circumstances while maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default two years further

imprisonment, we reduce his substantive term of imprisonment to the period already undergone and maintain the conviction of the Appellant not

under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal code but under Part II.

In Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana, 1987 (1) RCR (Crl.) 455 (SC) : AIR 1987 (SC) 806, it has been held as under:

Learned Counsel ultimately contended that this Appellant a Patwari who had faced the trial and pendency of this appeal for about 14 years will

now have to go to jail for serving out a part of this sentence which remained to be served. It is no doubt true that having been convicted for these

offences the Appellant is bound to lose his service. It was also stated that he had served out some sentence of the imprisonment also. The incident

is of 1972 and we are now in 1987. In view of these circumstances, in our opinion, the sentence of the imprisonment already undergone and

sentence of fine imposed by Hon''ble the Trial Court will meet the ends of justice. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the

Appellant u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, his sentence as regards

sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the sentence already undergone but the sentence of fine is maintained. He is on bail. His bail bond shall be

cancelled; if he had not paid the amount of fine shall do so within one month from today.

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. As per custody

certificate, the accused-Appellants have already undergone about 24 days of actual sentence and have already faced the agony of protracted trial

for more than 13 years. Sending the Appellants to Jail once again at this juncture, in my view, would be a hard step. Keeping in view the facts and

circumstances of the case, the conviction of the Appellants under Sections 450/506/326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code stands

maintained but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine is

enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- each besides the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court, which shall be deposited by them before the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, keeping in view the

provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another Vs. State of

Punjab, , Appellants are directed to pay compensation to the injured. The amount so deposited by the Appellants shall be paid to the injured-

Gurmit Chand as compensation.

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

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