Crl. Revision No. 607 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 607 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 18, 2011 Kanwalit Singh and others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. R.K. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jaspreet Sekhon, AAG, Punjab. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners Kanwaljit Singh and Sarabjit Singh were found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- each for the commission of offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to fur- ther undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 200/- each for the commission of offence under Sec- tion 323/149 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to fur- Crl. Revision No. 607 of 2011 (O&M) 2 ther undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 300/- each for the commission of offence under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to fur- ther undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Petitioners Santokh Singh, Anokh Singh and Kashmir Singh were found guilty and sen- tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 200/- each for the commission of offence under Section 324/149 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. They were fur- ther sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 200/- each for the commission of offence under Sec- tion 323/149 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to fur- ther undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of ` 200/- each for the commission of offence under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to fur- ther undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months by Chief Ju- dicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, vide order dated 23.8.2005. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, accused/revision- ists preferred an appeal and the sentences were affirmed by learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 25.2.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction of the accused under Sections 323,324,148,149 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has argued that this Court may enhance the fine/compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and may consider to reduce the sentence for the period already Crl. Revision No. 607 of 2011 (O&M) 3 undergone. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners agrees to pay ` 1,00,000/- as compensation to the injured Balbir Singh and wife Manjit Kaur. Mr. Jaspreet Sekhon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, states that petitioners/revisionists are the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against them. He further submits that the petition- ers/accused have already undergone about three moths. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh ver- sus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, in paragraph No.7 observed as under:- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future.The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balanc- ing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be under- mined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individ- Crl. Revision No. 607 of 2011 (O&M) 4 ual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185, by taking note of a fact that accident had occurred 20 years earlier, ordered that the convict be released on probation. The present case was registered in the year 1997 against the petitioners for offence under Sections 324,323,148,149 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are facing criminal case for last more than 13-14 years. The sword of Damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioners for all times to come. They have suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against them. The petitioners have already undergone sentence for three months in this case. In the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the petitioners in jail in the company of hard core criminals; reducing the sentence for the period already undergone and en- hancing the fine/compensation seems to be best option. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. However, fine/compensation imposed upon the petitioners is enhanced to ` 1,00,000/- under Section 357 Cr.P.C. over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court to be paid to injured Balbir Singh and his wife Manjit Kaur. The petitioners are directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court to be paid to the injured Balbir Singh and his wife Manjit Kaur. After deposit of ` 1,00,000/- Crl. Revision No. 607 of 2011 (O&M) 5 Trial Court shall issue notice to Balbir Singh and Manjit Kaur and shall pay the amount to them. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount of fine/compensation is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge May 18, 2011 Anand