Crl. Revision No.2411 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2411 of 2002 Date of Decision: August 10, 2010 Mehal Singh and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 3.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”) whereby judgment and order, dated 9.2.2000, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) convicting the petitioners was upheld and they all were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for the offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also Crl. Revision No.2411 of 2002 -2- to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for an offence under Sections 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in para 2 of the Appellate Court judgment, are as under: “On 24.7.1996 HC Malkiat Singh was present at Bus Stand, Sidhwan in connection with patrolling where complainant Kabal Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that he is a resident of village Margindpura and his younger sister Kulwinder Kaur was married with Jasbir Singh, resident of Wan Tara Singh, who was serving in Bhilaipur. Said Jasbir Singh along with Kulwinder Kaur came to see his ailing mother in his village. He stated that on 23.7.1996, he (complainant) along with Jasbir Singh, his brother-in-law was going to village Wan Tara Singh. At about 7 p.m. all the appellants along with Joga Singh (since deceased) came from the front side and they surrounded Jasbir Singh in the area of village Wan Tara Singh and asked him to get them met with his brother Hardev Singh, with whom they were having dealings concerning smuggling. Jasbir Singh replied that he did not know where his brother Hardev Singh resided. Thereafter, the appellants along with Joga Singh (since dead) started beating to Jasbir Singh after removing his jacket. The complainant and Jasbir Singh raised hue and cry which attracted many people of the Gali at the spot but none tried to rescue Jasbir Singh from their clutches. The appellants then dragged Jasbir Singh to the Crl. Revision No.2411 of 2002 -3- house of Mehal Singh. Mastan Singh then brought a Tractor make Zeter 5911 along with a Trolley from his house and after tying the legs and arms of Jasbir Singh put in the trolley and took him to village Basarke. The complainant then came on a cycle to his village and informed Panch Milkha Singh about the occurrence who suggested to approach the Police at Police Station Khalra in the morning. In the morning, the complainant along with said Milkha Singh tried to trace out Jasbir Singh on various places but he could not. However, on enquiry he had come to know that said Jasbir Singh was tied in a house of father-in-law of Mastan Singh in village Bhai Ladhu where he was illegally confined and caused injuries on his person. After recording statement, ruqa was sent to the Police Station which was attested by the SHO Anokh Singh and on the basis of which formal FIR was registered against the accused. Investigation was conducted and the appellants along with Joga Singh (since dead) were arrested. Rough site plan was prepared and after completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in the Court.” 3. The accused-petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, viz., Head Constable Randhir Singh as PW1; Dr.Jaswant Singh as PW2; Sucha Singh as PW3; complainant – Kabal Singh as PW4; Jasbir Singh as PW5 and Milkha Singh as PW6. Crl. Revision No.2411 of 2002 -4- 5. Statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment. 7. The sentence of the petitioners was ordered to be suspended vide order dated 13.1.2003 and the present revision petition was admitted on 27.5.2004. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioners as the offence stands proved. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 24.7.1996. Thus, the petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for more than 14 years. The petitioners have already undergone sentence for about 1-1/2 months. They have not misused the concession of bail. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 14 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone Crl. Revision No.2411 of 2002 -5- and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have faced the agony of trial for more than 14 years, the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them, but their conviction under Sections 342, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code stands maintained. 13. To assuage the feeling of wrong done by the petitioners, the complainant deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each besides the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of fine, an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses. 14. In case, the petitioners fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 3.12.2002 and that of the Trial Court dated 9.2.2000 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 10, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No