Malook Singh & Ors. vs State Of Punjab

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

At the very outset, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for appellants No.6 & 7 that appellants No.2, 3 and 5-Kulwinder Singh, Harjit Singh, Santokh Singh expired during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, the appeal qua them stand abated.

This appeal has been preferred by appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana in case FIR No.296 of 1999, registered under Sections 325/324/323/336/427/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the following terms :-

Learned counsel(s) for appellants No.1, 4 and 6 & 7 submits that they are not assailing the judgment of conviction on merits, rather restricts their prayer qua modification of the order of sentence to the period already undergone as appellants No.1, 4 and 6 & 7 have been suffering the agony of trial since 13.08.1999 and the matter has since been settled between the parties. It is also submitted that the complainant has also expired during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have no objection to the modification of the order of sentence. Learned counsel also prays for reduction of sentence while taking a lenient view on the ground that the appellants have already undergone substantial period of sentence out of the total sentence of 10 years and appellants No.1, 4 and 7 are more than 75 years of age while appellant No.5 is 45 years old.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the appellant by way of filing of custody certificates of the appellants on the ground that the learned Court below has passed well-reasoned judgment after taking into consideration the entire evidence and the material available on record and there is no perversity or illegality in the findings returned by it.

Mr. Nav Chahal, Advocate appearing for the legal heirs of the complainant-Balbir Singh has affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties and submits that he has no objection if the sentence imposed upon appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 be reduced to the period already undergone them.

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 1999 and the appellant has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 27 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 accused, 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 two-Judges 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 learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, learned counsel(s) for the appellants have not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather restricted the prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7.

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 1999. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 27 years and have been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. In view of the facts noted above, appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 deserves to be dealt with leniency. Appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 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] (5 of 5) [CRLR-755/2003] State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, their age, 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 appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 is reduced to the period as already undergone by them.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana on 23.08.2006 is hereby affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the Court concerned under the aforesaid Sections has been modified and reduced to the period of sentence as already undergone by appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7. The appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 are already on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. The amount of fine imposed upon appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 shall remain the same and shall be deposited within one month from today and in case of non-deposit of fine awarded within the stipulated period, the trial court is directed to initiate the proceedings to recover the same from appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 in accordance with law.

Consequently, the appeal qua appellants No.2, 3 and 5-Kulwinder Singh, Harjit Singh, Santokh Singh stand abated and qua appellants No.1, 4, 6 & 7 stand disposed of.

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