Nishan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2017

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

READ  Smt. Tripti Chakraborty vs Anjan Chakraborty on 28 July, 2017

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

READ  Raju Maroti Dhore (Abated) And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Pso ... on 13 April, 2017

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 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *