Surinderpal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 25 May, 2017

CRR No.204 of 2017 (OM)
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR No.204 of 2017 (OM)
Decided on: 25.05.2017

Surinderpal Singh ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present : Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab.

REKHA MITTAL, J.

Mr. Tejinder Singh Salana, Advocate has caused

appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

The present petition directs challenge against consistent

findings recorded by the Courts below whereby the petitioner has been

convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’), sentenced to

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-

and further imprisonment of 03 months in case of default of payment of

fine.

Notice of motion was issued limited to quantum of

sentence.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sukwinder

Kaur – respondent filed a private complaint in July, 2002 against the

petitioner, Dalip Kaur his mother and Narinderpal Singh, his brother

under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The trial Court vide judgment dated

12.08.2013 held the petitioner guilty of committing offence punishable

1 of 3
08-06-2017 21:03:46 :::
CRR No.204 of 2017 (OM)
2

under Section 498-A IPC only whereas all the accused were acquitted of

the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and co-accused of the

petitioner were also acquitted of offence under Section 498-A IPC. It is

further submitted that the petitioner was awarded the maximum

prescribed sentence of 03 years by the trial Court that came to be

READ  Shaikh Maqsood Vs. State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2009

affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on

20.10.2016. The petitioner has faced agony of criminal proceedings for

the past about 13/14 years. He has suffered custody for a period of more

than 07 months and sentence including remission for more than 08

months. Out of wedlock of the petitioner and Sukhwinder Kaur, there

were two children and the elder child, a son was residing with the

petitioner. Few days back, son of the petitioner aged about 23 years

passed away and the petitioner is under tremendous tension due to

untimely death of his son and needs to be with his family in order to

share grief in the company of his other family members. It is prayed that

substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the

period already undergone.

Counsel representing State of Punjab has opposed the

prayer for reduction in sentence. However, counsel for the complainant

would state that a sympathetic view may be take in the matter in the light

of fact that a grown up son of the petitioner and complainant has died.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the

paperbook particularly the judgments passed by the Courts below.

Marriage of the petitioner with Sukhwinder Kaur was

performed on 29.11.1993. Sukhwinder Kaur – respondent filed a private

complaint under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC on 17.07.2002. After

2 of 3
08-06-2017 21:03:47 :::
CRR No.204 of 2017 (OM)
3

conducting preliminary enquiry, accused were ordered to be summoned

vide order dated 22.10.2003. It is not clear on record as to when the

READ  Balbir Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 26 September, 2006

accused caused appearance before the trial Court in pursuance of

summoning order passed in 2003. However, it remains a fact that

proceedings pending before the trial Court culminated in a judgment of

conviction against the petitioner in August, 2013. As has been noticed

hereinbefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner did not find favour

with the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby conviction

and sentence of the petitioner for offence under Section 498-A IPC were

affirmed. Indisputably, the petitioner has suffered custody for a period of

more than 07 months and sentence including remission for a period of 08

months. Unfotunately, the petitioner lost his son aged about 23 years

who was residing with the petitioner after the wife left the matrimonial

home. Counsel for the complainant has expressed his sympathy with the

petitioner due to unfortunate demise of son of the parties. Taking a

cumulative view of the facts and circumstances that the petitioner has

suffered pangs of criminal trial for the past more than 10 years coupled

with the custody period already undergone along with the fact that loss

of a young son has caused a big set-back to the petitioner, interest of

justice would be served if substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner

is reduced to the period already undergone.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is disposed of with

modification in the aforesaid terms.

25.05.2017 (REKHA MITTAL)
yakub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
08-06-2017 21:03:47 :::

Leave a Comment

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