Pappu vs State Of Punjab

Surya Partap Singh, J.

The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the appellant. The same be taken on record.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.2004, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Faridkot, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.197 dated 23.12.1999, was registered at the instance of ‘Ram Sarup’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, Malout. In view of abovementioned case, investigation was conducted by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant and his co-accused, namely ‘Santokh Singh’, ‘Gurdip Singh’, ‘Naib Singh’ and ‘Surinderpal Singh @Chhinda’, were sent to face trial before the learned trial Court.

The appellant and his co-accused participated in the abovementioned trial which, by virtue of impugned judgment, culminated into conviction of the appellant and acquittal of co-accused, namely ‘Santokh Singh’, ‘Gurdip Singh’, ‘Naib Singh’ and ‘Surinderpal Singh @Chhinda’. Thus, vide order dated 06.07.2004, on the point of quantum of sentence, the appellant was awarded following sentences:-

Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Ram Sarup’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that he was working as a Teacher in Village Midda. According to complainant, on 23.12.1999 at about 05:00 am, he was present at his confectionary shop, situated in his house. As per complainant, four youths, with muffled faces, namely ‘Pappu’, ‘Naib Singh’, and ‘Sukhdeep Singh’ and one unknown person, aged about 25 years, came there. The complainant further alleged that the abovementioned four persons entered his shop, pointed a pistol at him and ‘Pappu’ placed his pistol on his chest and stated that in case, complainant raised alarm, he would be killed. As per complainant, thereafter, they asked the complainant to handover, whatever, he was having with him. According to complainant, on hearing commotion, his wife ‘Nirmala Kumar’ came to the shop and on seeing them, his wife took off her gold chain, and earrings which she was wearing and handed over the same to them out of fear. The complainant further alleged that he, too, handed over currency notes of Rs.2000/- to the assailants. As per complainant, thereafter, when the assailants were leaving his shop, his wife raised alarm, upon which people started gathering there and they caught hold of ‘Gurmeet Singh @Pappu’, whereas the other assailants managed to flee.

It is case of the prosecution that on the basis of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, under Section 161 CrPC, recovered .12 bore pistol from the possession of appellant, and completed other usual formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed.

To discharge its burden with regard to charge against the appellant, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary as well as oral evidence. The documents relied upon, and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution were:-

Ex.PA - Statement of PW-1 Ram Sarup

Ex.PB - Recovery memo of a pistol .12 bore from the appellant on the spot

Ex.PC - Sketch of the recovered pistol

Ex.PD - Recovery memo of two live cartridges of .12 bore pistol

Ex.PE - Confessional statement of appellant

Ex.PF - Arrest memo of appellant

Ex.PG - Receipt of gold chain of wife of complainant (21gm)

Ex.PH - Receipt of gold chain issued by goldsmith

To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as four witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Those were:-

PW-1 - Ram Sarup (complainant)

PW-2 - Hakam Singh

PW-5 - Jang Singh (Goldsmith)

PW-6 - Nirmala Kumari (wife of the complainant)

Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed essential formalities as enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellant. The appellant had examined only one witness, i.e. DW-1 Kulwant Singh and proved the documents as Ex.DA (judgment dated 09.04.2002, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Sri Muktsar Sahib) and Ex.DB (statement of DW-1 Kulwant Singh).

Once the evidence was complete, the learned trial Court gave an opportunity to the appellant as well as prosecution to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction against the appellant was pronounced.

Heard.

It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside, being the outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that necessary ingredients meant for the commission of offence under Section 386 of IPC were not established by the prosecution, as per the standard prescribed under the law. As per learned counsel for the appellant, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court held that charges against the appellant were proved. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was wrongly held guilty, and convicted accordingly, by the learned trial Court.

However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the instant appeal, the appellant is not inclined to challenge the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has categorically submitted that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order on the quantum of sentence only.

It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident had taken place way back in the year 1999. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is facing the agony of litigation for the last more than 27 years and has, in fact, already suffered more punishment than deserved.

In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that in the present case, the appellant has already served a sentence for a period of more than two years and three months. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in view of above-discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the offence, for which the appellant was convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellant may be treated to be sufficient.

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 386 of IPC. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a period of five years, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not entitled to a sentence of imprisonment for a period of less than five years. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merit and deserves dismissal.

The record has been perused carefully.

Once it is a categorical stand of the appellant that he is not challenging the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference or indulgence in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, with regard to conviction of appellants, for the offence under Section 386 of IPC. Accordingly, the abovementioned finding is hereby affirmed and qua the judgment of conviction instant appeal is hereby dismissed.

As far as the order on quantum of sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellant has already served a sentence for a period of two years, three months and twenty one days, against the awarded sentence of five years, and that he is not a previous convict, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled to a lenient view.

Here this fact can’t be ignored that the State/prosecution has failed to show that in the last 27 years, since the FIR in this case was lodged, the petitioner has committed any other offence of similar nature. In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a period of five years, is hereby observed to be harsh. Thus, it is hereby held that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for interference and indulgence of appellate jurisdiction of this Court.

In the light of above observations, if the factual matrix of present case is analyzed, it transpires that following are the points which need consideration: -

As a cumulative effect of abovementioned factors, it is hereby held that in the present case the appellant is entitled to a lenient view. In view of above, in my opinion, the sentence, which he has already been undergone in the present case, i.e. imprisonment for a period of two years, three months and twenty one days, is adequate to meet the ends of justice.

As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. The judgment of conviction is upheld; but order on the point of quantum of sentence is modified, and the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly.