CRR-2659-2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217
CRR-2659-2008
Date of Decision:01.07.2019
Sukhdev Singh …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.
Present: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)
The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision against the
judgment dated 02.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bathinda, whereby his appeal against the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 11.08.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bathinda, was dismissed.
Briefly stated, FIR No.340 dated 26.07.2000 under Sections
294, Section354, Section506, Section509 IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police
Station Kotwali, Bathinda on the basis of statement made by complainant
Devinder Kaur. In her statement, she stated that her husband is a carpenter
by profession. They are having a Maruti car which they wanted to sell.
Some days ago, when she along with her husband were present at their
residence, petitioner-accused came to see the car for some one. On seeing
her with bad intention, he started obscene acts pointing to her. His intention
1 of 4
14-07-2019 04:56:02 :::
CRR-2659-2008 2
was not good. Thereafter, petitioner-accused telephoned her, but she told
him that she is not such type of woman as he thinks and disconnected the
phone. She narrated the whole episode to her husband. They kept mum to
save their respect in the society. Thereafter, the complainant along with her
brother-in-law(Devar) were standing at the bus stand, a maruti car bearing
registration No.DBC-1999 came from the side of village Multania and
stopped by her side. Petitioner-accused alighted from the said car and with
bad intention without her consent, caught her wrist and forced her to sit in
the car. She along with her brother-in-law raised alarm. Then petitioner-
accused left her wrist and threatened her if she will disclose this incident to
anyone, he will kill her and fled away from the spot.
After registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out and
the statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested and
produced in Court. After completion of investigation, Challan was filed in
the Court.
The copy of Challan as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.PC was
supplied to the accused free of cost. Finding a prima facie case against the
petitioner, he was charge-sheeted under Sections 294, Section354, Section506, Section509 IPC to
which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, learned
trial Court vide judgment dated 11.08.2008 convicted the petitioner for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, Section354, Section506, Section509 IPC
Vide separate order dated 11.08.2008, learned trial Court sentenced the
petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for the
commission of offence under Section 354 IPC and for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 294, Section506, Section509 IPC for a period of three
2 of 4
14-07-2019 04:56:02 :::
CRR-2659-2008 3
months each.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the Court of
Session. However, vide judgment dated 02.12.2008, learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bathinda, dismissed the said appeal.
It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has filed the
present criminal revision.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has not
challenged the conviction of the petitioner, but restricted his arguments on
the point of quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner.
He has argued that as against the awarded sentence of six
months, the petitioner has already undergone actual imprisonment for 01
month. He is a poor person and has been suffering the agony of criminal
proceedings since 26.07.2000 i.e. the date of registration of the FIR in
question.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has not disputed the
custody of the petitioner, but has opposed the plea of taking a liberal view,
as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Perusal of the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below
shows that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record
while holding the petitioner guilty for commission of offence under
Sections 294, Section354, Section506, Section509 IPC. The appellate Court has also dismissed his
appeal. There is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the
Courts below regarding conviction of the petitioner under Sections 294,
Section354, Section506, Section509 IPC, which may warrant interference of this Court by
3 of 4
14-07-2019 04:56:02 :::
CRR-2659-2008 4
invoking its revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the
petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has, rather,
restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction
of the petitioner is, therefore, affirmed.
So far as the issue on quantum of sentence is concerned, as
against the awarded sentence of six months, the petitioner has already
undergone imprisonment for a period of 01 month. He has been facing the
agony of criminal proceedings since 26.07.2000 i.e. the date when the FIR
in question was registered against him.
Therefore, taking into account the protracted trial, antecedents
of the petitioner coupled with the fact that he has already suffered
incarceration for a period of 01 month, this Court feels that the ends of
justice would be met, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to
the period already undergone by him, subject to payment of costs of
`5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner with the Poor Patients Welfare Fund,
PGIMER, Chandigarh.
Ordered accordingly.
With aforesaid modification in the order of sentence, the
present revision petition stands dismissed.
July 01, 2019 (HARI PAL VERMA)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
14-07-2019 04:56:02 :::