Sarabjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Sarabjit Singh, challenging judgment dated 14.10.2003, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, (for short, ''the first appellate Court'')dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, (for short, ''the trial Court'') vide which the accused-petitioner has been convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, ''the IPC'') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year (u/s 304-A IPC) and 06 months (u/s 279 IPC). However, both the sentences were order to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner.

From the record, it is made out that the incident took place on 05.09.1997. The revision petition pertains to the year 2003. The petitioner has already suffered protracted trial.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan V. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" observed as under:-

We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment

In another case titled as "Umrao Singh V. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16(1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents.

Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly

For the aforesaid special reasons, I am of the considered view that the sentence/imprisonment already undergone by the appellant will meet the ends of justice.

Consequently, the conviction of the appellant, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by her subject to the payment of Rs. 25,000/-to the complainant as compensation, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The said amount be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, to be paid to the complainant.

In case, the appellant fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of compensation in the Court of learned CJM, Patiala, within the period stipulated above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the petitioner shall have to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above. This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.