CRR No.3466 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Revision No.3466 of 2016 (OM)
Date of Decision: April 24, 2017.
Nishan Singh
……….PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Punjab
……..RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner (s).
Ms. Shivali, A.A.G. Punjab,
for respondent-State.
*******
SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated
29.01.2015 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
and to pay a fine of `1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 377
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short-IPC) and to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `500/- for the
offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his
co-accused committed carnal intercourse with complainant. Co-accused
Inderjit Singh died while Gurpreet Singh was declared proclaimed offender.
1 of 3
30-04-2017 04:12:20 :::
CRR No.3466 of 2016 -2-
Petitioner filed appeal against his conviction and sentence,
which was dismissed by the Appellate Court. However, the sentence
awarded to him for the offence punishable under Section 377 read with
Section 34 IPC was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three years to
rigorous imprisonment for two years, maintaining the remaining sentence as
awarded by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the
conviction of petitioner as recorded by the Courts below, however, he
requests for a lenient view regarding quantum of sentence stating that
petitioner has two minor children, one is aged about 2½ years and other is
about 3½ years old. He is also having old aged parents to look after. In
support of his contention, he has placed on record copy of Aadhaar Cards of
his both the children. Petitioner is 33 years of age and at the time of
occurrence, he was young boy of 27 years of age. He is not a previous
convict and has undergone imprisonment of about eight months by now.
Learned State counsel has argued that neither of the submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioner makes out any reason for further
reduction in the sentence awarded to him. The petitioner has committed
offence of unnatural carnal intercourse with a young boy aged about 12
years, who belong to a very poor strata of the society. The offence
committed by him is quite serious in nature and the punishment awarded to
him commensurate the nature of offence committed by him.
Perusal of the judgment of trial Court shows that the petitioner
was not a previous convict and was of the young age of about 27 years at
the time of commission of offence. He is alleged to be only bread winner of
the family and has very young children to look after.
2 of 3
30-04-2017 04:12:21 :::
CRR No.3466 of 2016 -3-
In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that there are
reasons to re-look the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner.
Keeping in view the antecedents and the other circumstances as submitted
by learned counsel for the petitioner, the sentence awarded to him by the
Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC is further
reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. The sentence of fine
imposed under Section 377 IPC is, however, enhanced from `1000/- to
`5000/-. Remaining sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 506
IPC is maintained.
With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, this
petition is disposed of.
( SURINDER GUPTA )
April 24, 2017 JUDGE
Sachin M.
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
30-04-2017 04:12:21 :::
