Satnam Singh alias Satta and Another 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

(Adhoc), Amritsar on 3.10.2002 whereby the Appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 450/326/324/323/34 IPC and

sentenced as under:

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence u/s 450 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month;

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence u/s 326/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month;

(iii) Chhinda alias Sammu Appellant u/s 324 IPC and Satnam Singh Appellant u/s 324/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year

each; and

(iv) Satnam Singh Appellant u/s 323 IPC and Chhinda alias Sammu Appellant u/s 323/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months

each.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution, the two Appellants, alongwith their co-accused Jassa Singh alias Jasbir Singh had entered the house of Sulakhan

Singh complainant on 10.10.1997 at about 8.30 PM and caused injuries to him. At that time Satnam Singh Appellant was armed with a dang,

Chhinda Appellant was carrying a spear while Jassa Singh, since a proclaimed offender, was armed with a kirpan.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has not challenged the impugned judgment of conviction. However, he has submitted that both the

Appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 13 years. The injuries attributed to the Appellants were simple

in nature. They have been held vicariously liable for the offence u/s 326 IPC on account of the grievous injury caused by their co-accused Jassa

Singh, since a proclaimed offender. Even the grievous injury caused by said Jassa Singh alias Jasbir Singh was on the lower portion of the right leg

of Sulakhan Singh complainant. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for the last more than 8 years. Both the Appellants have

remained in jail for a period of about 11/2 months. None of the Appellants is a previous convict. Therefore, the remaining sentences of

imprisonment of the Appellants be set aside.

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the Appellants by submitting that the Appellants, alongwith their co-accused

Jassa Singh alias Jasbir Singh, entered into the house of complainant and, thus, committed house-trespass in order to commit an offence punishable

with imprisonment for life. Both of them were attributed causing of injuries to the complainant. Therefore, none of them deserves any leniency in the

matter of sentence.

From the records, it is apparent that Satnam Singh Appellant was arrested on 15.10.1997 during investigation of the case and it was only on

13.11.1997 that he was granted the concession of bail. Similarly, Chhinda alias Sammu Appellant was arrested on 19.10.1997 and released on

bail on 7.11.1997. Both of them were again taken into custody upon their conviction and sentence by the trial Court and it was only on 8.10.2002

that they were granted the concession of bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the

Appellants behind the bars, once again, for undergoing their remaining sentences of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if the

substantive sentences of imprisonment of the Appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them. At the same time, the fine imposed upon

each the Appellants can be suitably enhanced so as to adequately compensate Sulakhan Singh-injured/complainant.

Resultantly, the conviction of the Appellants, as recorded by the trial Court, is maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of the

Appellants are reduced to that already undergone by them. The fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon each of the Appellants for the offence u/s 450

IPC alongwith its default clause, is maintained. However, the fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon each of them for the offence u/s 326/34 IPC is

enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- and in default of the same, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. The Appellants are granted three

months'' time from today for depositing the enhanced amount of fine. Once the fine is deposited by the Appellants, the same be disbursed to

Sulakhan Singh- injured/complainant as compensation.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.