SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 July, 2019

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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation