Rajesh vs State of Haryana

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 07.10.2005 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Panipat, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that one FIR, i.e. the FIR No.35 dated 24.01.1999, was registered at the instance of ‘Major Raj Pal Singh Kadyan’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat. In the wake of abovementioned FIR, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial before the learned trial Court.

The appellant participated in the abovementioned trial. By virtue of judgment dated 07.10.2005, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment’, the abovesaid trial culminated into conviction of the appellant. Thus, vide order dated 08.10.2005, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, on the point of quantum of sentence, following sentences were awarded to the appellant:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

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

In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘Major Raj Pal Singh Kadyan’, the complainant. The complainant alleged that on the intervening night of 23/24.01.1999 within the area of Village Siwah, District Panipat, ‘Rajesh’ (the appellant herein) committed robbery by using a deadly weapon, i.e. a pistol. According to complainant, the appellant allegedly robbed one gold chain, one gold necklace weighing 3 ½ tolas, one wrist watch, shoes as well as wearing clothes belonging to him. As per complainant, when he screamed for help, ‘Jai Singh’ and ‘Dariya’ arrived at the spot and that on their arrival, the appellant ran away from the spot along with stolen articles.

It was the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, 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, and completed other usual formalities of investigation. Thereafter, the final report under Section 173 of CrPC was filed.

To discharge its burden of proving the charges against the appellant, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon oral and documentary evidence, both. The documents proved, and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution were:-

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

Once the prosecution evidence was recorded, the learned trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity to lead defence evidence was afforded to the appellant. In his defence evidence, the appellant had examined only one witness, i.e. DW-1 Jai Singh.

Once the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction, against the appellant, was pronounced and, accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed hereinabove.

Heard.

It has been contended on behalf of appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are perverse and unsustainable. According to learned Amicus Curiae, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumption, the unreliable and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution was believed by the learned trial Court. According to learned Amicus Curiae, the learned trial Court had failed to apply its judicial mind, and that, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises findings of conviction of appellant under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC were recorded.

It has been further contended by learned Amicus Curiae that the learned trial Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution had to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. According to learned Amicus Curiae, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was grossly inadequate to draw an inference that all the essential ingredients, meant for the commission of offence, for which the appellant was convicted had been established. In view of above, the learned Amicus Curiae has contended that the case against the appellant was not proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the learned trial Court returned the finding of conviction.

However, during the course of arguments, the learned Amicus Curiae 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 Amicus Curiae has categorically contended that at this stage, by virtue of present appeal, the appellant is challenging the order on the point of quantum of sentence only.

It has been further contended by learned Amicus Curiae 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 have, in fact, already suffered more punishment than they deserved.

In addition to above, the learned Amicus Curiae has also argued that in the present case, the appellant ‘Rajesh’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years and seventeen days. According to learned Amicus Curiae, in view of above-discussed factors, and the fact that minimum sentence has not been prescribed for the offence, for which the appellant has been convicted, the sentence already undergone by the appellant may be treated to be sufficient.

Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the appellants have been found guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. According to learned State Counsel, the sentence awarded to the appellant, i.e. imprisonment for a period of seven years, is already on lower side, and that the appellant is not entitled to a sentence of less than seven years. As per learned State Counsel, the instant appeal has no merits and deserves dismissal.

The record has been perused carefully.

Once it is 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 appellant, for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 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 ‘Rajesh’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period of two years and seventeen days, against the awarded sentence of seven years, it is hereby held that the appellant is entitled to a lenient view.

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

In view of abovementioned observations, the sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby held to be harsh and, as a consequence thereof, it is hereby observed that with regard to quantum of sentence, there is need for interference and indulgence in the impugned order on the point of quantum of sentence, by exercising the appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. Thus, in my opinion, by exercising the abovementioned jurisdiction, the sentence awarded to the appellant needs to be rationalized and reduced.

As a cumulative effect of abovementioned observations, it is hereby held that in the present case, the appellant is entitled to a lenient view, and that the sentence already undergone in the present case, 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.