Veer Singh @ Bira Singh vs State of Haryana

Rekha Mittal, J.—By this order, I shall dispose of CRA-S-1695-SB-2009 (Veer Singh @ Bira Singh Vs. State of Haryana) and CRA-S-1989-SB-2009 (Balwinder @ Poli Vs. State of Haryana) as these have emerged out of the same judgment dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad and involves identical questions of law and facts, for adjudication. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ''IPC''), as detailed hereinbelow:-

Pawan Kumar complainant submitted an application, Ex. P1, on the allegations that on 17.02.2007 at about 7.30 pm, his wife Reeta Devi and son Hunny were in their house bearing No. 186, Model Town Ratia. Three persons armed with pistol and kappas entered the house and took away two gold rings, one gold chain, Rs. 1,000/- in cash and one mobile set from the house. In the meanwhile, Lakhbir Singh son of Seta Singh and his brother Niranjan Sing came to his house to give sweets and pressed call bell. One of the accused already present in the house opened the door, pushed Lakhbir Singh and Niranjan Singh and kept them confined in a room along with his child and wife. They snatched one mobile (motorola), purse, one wrist watch and sim card from Lakhbir Singh and Niranjan Singh. One person, armed with pistol, encircled Reeta Devi, Niranjan Singh and Lakhbir Singh and remaining two persons armed with kappas ransacked the house. The accused were repeatedly saying to kill one of the hostages to take the keys. During investigation, five persons were arrested, including the appellants, they were interrogated and in pursuance of their disclosure statements, certain recoveries were effected. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and on completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence u/s 395 IPC being exclusively triable by the said Court.

The accused were charged for commission of aforesaid offence, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses, namely Balwant Singh, Draftsman (PW 1), SI Raj Kumar, Finger Print Expert (PW 2), HC Dalip Singh (PW 3), ASI Satpal Singh (PW 4), Lakhbir Singh (PW 5), HC Saravjeet Singh (PW 6), Inspector Kulwant Singh (PW 7), Inspector/SHO Yaad Ram (PW 8), Reeta Devi (PW 9), Complainant Pawan Kumar (PW 10), SI Krishan Chander (PW 11), ASI Kuldeep Singh (PW 12), SI Charan Singh (PW 13) and DSP Jai Pal (PW 14).

Statements of the accused, were recorded in compliance with the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ''the Code''), wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded their innocence and false implication. However, they did not examine any witness in defence.

Mr. R.K. Bansal, Advocate representing appellant Veer Singh @ Bira Singh and Ms. Amandeep Sibia, counsel for Balwinder Singh @ Poli are fair enough to concede that they do not assail the findings of the learned trial Court in regard to holding the appellants guilty of committing offence punishable u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Counsel for the appellant Veer Singh @ Bira Singh has submitted that the appellant suffered actual custody as an under trial for the period from 10.04.2008 to 16.04.2009 i.e. 1 year and 7 days and he is in custody after conviction w.e.f. 28.01.2010 till date and in this manner, the appellant has suffered a substantial part of the sentence out of total sentence of 7 years. It is argued that keeping in view the custody period already undergone coupled with the period during which the proceedings remained pending in the present case for the last more than 7 years, the sentence awarded may be reduced to the period already undergone.

With regard to appellant Balwinder Singh @ Poli, it is submitted that he has already undergone actual sentence for a period of 5 years and over 6 months out of total sentence of 7 years. The sentence awarded may be reduced to the period already undergone.

Counsel for the State of Haryana has not disputed factual assertions in regard to custody period as well as the period since when the proceedings are pending on the basis of FIR registered on 18.02.2007. However, it is submitted that the appellants were also involved in certain other criminal cases referred to in the custody certificates.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

There is no dispute about the facts on record in regard to the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellants, which is more than 5 years in both the cases. As per the custody certificate of Veer Singh @ Bira Singh, he was convicted and sentenced in 3 more cases but he has already undergone the sentence in those cases. Similarly, Balwinder Singh @ Poli was convicted in 2 cases and he has already undergone the sentence awarded in those cases. On the other hand, he was acquitted in 5 cases registered against him for offences similar in nature to the offence charged in the present proceedings. The appellants suffered torment, mental agony and pangs of criminal proceedings for over a period of 7 years.

Keeping in view the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine with default stipulation shall remain intact. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals stand disposed of with modification in sentence in the aforesaid terms.