Darbara Singh & Ors. vs State Of Punjab

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

Present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo sentence as under:-

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution is that Charanjit Kaur was married to Jaswinder Singh, son of accused Darbara Singh, but due to matrimonial discord she started residing with her parents along with her two children. Proceedings relating to the matrimonial dispute were pending before the Women Cell at Moga, where Sukhbir Singh, the complainant and cousin (Massi's son) of Charanjit Kaur, used to accompany her. About 4–5 days before the occurrence, accused Darbara Singh allegedly blamed Sukhbir Singh for supporting Charanjit Kaur and threatened to eliminate him. On 25.06.2005, while Sukhbir Singh was planting paddy in his fields, Gurpreet Singh came to meet him regarding paddy saplings. Gurpreet saw accused Kashmir Singh driving a scooter with Sandhura Singh as the pillion rider. As they approached Sukhbir Singh, Sandhura Singh allegedly fired a shot from his revolver, which first struck Sukhbir Singh's right arm and then pierced his abdomen. Sukhbir Singh fell unconscious, whereafter the accused fled from the spot raising lalkaras. The injured was taken to Dr. Manbir Gupta at Kotkapura for first aid and was subsequently referred to G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot, and thereafter to Ludhiana.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present appeal is not directed against the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and is confined only to seeking modification of the order on the quantum of sentence. It is contended that appellant Sandhura Singh, aged about 54 years at the time of conviction, has undergone actual custody of 03 years, 01 month and 06 days; appellant Darbara Singh, aged about 62 years, has undergone 01 year and 11 months; and appellant Kashmir Singh, aged about 37 years, has undergone 01 year, 05 months and 26 days out of the total sentence awarded. It is, therefore, prayed that since the FIR pertains to the year 2005, this Court may take a lenient view and suitably reduce the sentence.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellants and filed the custody certificates in the Court, which are taken on record. He further submits that the Court below has passed a well reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

The FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2005 and he has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 21 years.

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence is committed, age of the petitioner, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.

Further, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim, but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner, in which the crime was committed and conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the Court below indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, learned Senior counsel for the appellants has not assailed the judgment, rather restricted the prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the appellants.

As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 2005. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellants have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 21 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the appellants deserve to be dealt with leniency. The appellants also deserve the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. [2023:RJ-JD:28174](5of5)[CRLR-755/2003] State of Maharashtra reported in 20122 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellants, their status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period as already undergone by them.

Accordingly, judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated 01.09.2006 is hereby affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the Court concerned under Sections 307, 34, 120-B IPC has been modified and reduced to the period of sentence as already undergone by them. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.

With these modifications, the present appeal is disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.