Sanjeev Kumar and Another vs State of Punjab

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The accused-appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred as trial Court) for the offences punishable under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the case bearing FIR No. 24 dated 5.2.1998, registered at Police Station City Hoshiarpur for inflicting injuries with kirpan and chhurra (knife) on the person of Harvinder Singh.

The learned trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide judgment and order dated 4.8.2000 (hereinafter referred as the ''impugned judgment''), has convicted the accused-appellants for the commission of offence u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment/order of conviction / sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court.

The present appeal was admitted on 29.8.2000 and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail by this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that since appellant No. 2- Avtar Singh has died, the appeal qua him abates.

Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment/order of conviction/sentence on merits. However, he has prayed for reduction of sentence of appellant No. 1-Sanjeev Kumar to the period already undergone by taking leniency. The appellant is stated to have suffered the agony of protracted trial for more than 12 years as the FIR is dated 5.2.1998 and he has not misused the concession of bail.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that since offence is proved, so no leniency should be shown.

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

The occurrence in the present case took place on 4.2.1998 and the FIR was registered under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the accused-appellant was found guilty u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and not u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Ramdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (1) R.C.R. (cri) 967 has observed as under:-

On our close scrutiny of the testimony of eye witnesses- PWs 2 and 3 and having gone through the First Information Report (Ex.P/1), it is clear that on the date of the incident, all of a sudden altercation ensued between the appellant and deceased Shri Krishna Sharma on the issue of payment of Rs. 150/- as interest amount. There is no evidence on record to indicate that there was any previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant is an agriculturist. Undisputedly, a single blow of sickle had been inflicted by the appellant on the back of the deceased. Dr. P.R. Pendharkar (PW1) conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Shri Krishna Sharma who as stated above died on 1.7.1996. According to Dr. P.R. Pendharkar, 11 injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased, out of which injury No. 10 was incised wound allegedly inflicted by the appellant on the back side of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, injury Nos. 1 to 9 were in the nature of Ulcers'' and indirect outcome of injury No. 10. The opinion of the doctor proves that the deceased had not died due to direct result of injury No. 10 sustained by him. It is also pertinent to mention that the occurrence had taken place on 20.8.1994 and since then the appellant has been prosecuting the present case for the last more than 14 years in various courts and in that process he undoubtedly has undergone mental agony and financial sufferings. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, we feel that justice would be sub-served if the sentence imposed by the High Court, is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the appellant.

Keeping in view the fact that the appellant has suffered the agony of protracted trial for more than 12 years, the conviction of appellant No. 1- Sanjeev Kumar u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code stands maintained but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine of the appellant is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-, besides the fine imposed by the learned trial Court, which shall be deposited by him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The amount so deposited by the appellant shall be paid to the victim - Harvinder Singh son of Avtar Singh 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 pre-sent appeal stands disposed of.