Kunti vs State of Punjab

Surinder Gupta, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court only on the point of quantum of sentence without challenging the conviction of the petitioner.

Heard.

As per case of the prosecution, Harbhajan Singh Bailiff went to Mai Sewa Bazar, Amritsar to execute the warrants issued by the court to deliver possession to the Decree Holder-Iqbal Singh. The court had ordered the delivery of possession by breaking open the lock. On reaching the spot, he got the locks of the shop in question broken and removed the goods lying there. In the meanwhile, Judgment Debtor-Surinder Singh along with his son Rajiv Pal Singh, wife Sulakshana Kumari (non petitioner) and the petitioner-Kunti came there and started quarreling with him. Surinder Singh gave rod blow on the left hand of the Bailiff. All the four persons referred above, sat in front of the shop and did not allow the complainant-bailiff to lock the vacant shop and interfered in his official duty. Despite showing the warrant of possession they did not yield.

After presentation of the challan, charge for offence punishable under Sections 332/353/186 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the petitioner and the other accused. The trial resulted in their conviction.

The petitioner was awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence punishable u/s 186 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable u/s 353 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable u/s 332 read with Section 34 IPC.

The appeal filed by the petitioner met with no success and her conviction and sentence was maintained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested for lenient view regarding quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a housewife; not a previous convict; no role has been attributed to her in assaulting the government official and she has already undergone imprisonment of about three months and twenty days. He has argued that in the given facts and circumstances the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is on the higher side. He has prayed for release of petitioner on probation or to reduce her sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

The role of the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution was only that she sat in front of the shop of which bailiff was delivering possession. She neither misbehaved with the bailiff nor used any offensive language against him. She was neither armed with any weapon nor has been attributed any specific role in the occurrence. I find it to be fit case where lenient view should be taken. The petitioner is stated to be a house wife, who came to the spot only when the shop of her relative was being got vacated.

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that interest of justice will be fully met if her sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by her.

As such, this petition is dismissed with the modification that the sentence awarded to her for offence punishable under Sections 332/353 read with Section 34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by her. However, the remaining sentences awarded to her including the sentence of fine are kept intact.

Copy of the release warrants be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amritsar immediately through fax and copy of this judgment be also sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.