Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab

Anita Chaudhary, J.—This revision was admitted on the limited question of quantum of sentence. The petitioners were convicted in FIR no. 43 dated 26.05.2006 registered under Sections 148, 452, 324, 323, 427, 149 IPC, P.S. Sherpur, District Sangrur and were sentenced and awarded the following punishment:

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence an appeal was preferred which came to be dismissed on 18.04.2014 by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The order of sentence was also maintained.

The present revision was filed challenging the judgment on merits, but the petitioners at the time of admission restricted their plea to the limited question of quantum of sentence.

A brief reference to the factual aspects is necessary. The complainant Rajan Singh is a Property Dealer who runs his business alongwith his younger brother Hardeep Singh. The allegations were that on 24.05.2006, the accused armed with swords, iron chains, dangs and entered the complainant shop and asked for the cash of Rs. 10 lacs which had been kept in his shop and related to the sale deed of a land. The complainant side refused. The accused party asked for the keys of their vehicles, on refusal a scuffle took place. The accused party broke the window panes of the cabin and their car. They damaged the electricity meter and attacked the complainant party with swords and dangs which resulted in injuries to Rajan Singh and Hardeep Singh.

The petitioners were tried and convicted and were sentenced to the imprisonment mentioned hereinbefore. Their appeal also failed. Still not satisfied they have preferred this revision.

I have heard both the sides.

The counsel for the petitioners prays for reduction of the sentence and release of the petitioners on probation. It was urged that the incident was of the year 2006 and during trial Zora Singh, the father of the petitioners who was 73 years old had died and being first offender the benefit should have been extended to the petitioners. It was urged that the trial Court had observed that the accused should not have used force to settle the dispute regarding the money transaction. It was urged that the parties were running a joint business and the complainant side has refused to part with their share. It was contended that the petitioners have already undergone over 3 month of imprisonment and if the benefit of probation cannot be allowed, then the sentence be reduced to already undergone. It was urged that the fine had already been paid.

Learned State counsel submits that the accused party had entered the shop of the complainant side and they had come prepared to assault the complainant side and the grievous injuries were caused to the complainant party.

As the prayer made by the petitioners is restricted only to the sentence, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below convicting the petitioners is affirmed. As regards the prayer for reduction of sentence, it is noted that the occurrence took place in the year 2006. The petitioners had undergone incarceration for a period of over 3 months and they have faced trial for over 7 years. There has been no other incident between this period. Therefore, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the ends of the justice should be met in case the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to 6 months under Sections 324/149 IPC. With this modification alone the revision is disposed of. The sentence awarded u/s 323, 149 would remain unchanged. There will be no modification in the fine. The petitioners are stated to be in custody. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below.

The present Criminal Revision stands disposed of on the above terms.