CRA-S-2337-SB-2011 (O&M) 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal S-2337-SB of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 20th 2012 Ajay Kumar alias Jeji .... Appellant Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Trial of a case registered by way of FIR No.67 dated 23.2.2010 at Police Station Kotwali, Patiala District Patiala for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 324, 341 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code ended in conviction of Ajay Kumar alias Jeji, the appellant and others for an offence punishable under sections 148, 324, 341 read with section 149 IPC vide judgment dated 12.7.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Vide order of the same date, the following sentence was awarded to the appellant by the CRA-S-2337-SB-2011 (O&M) 2 .. learned trial court:- Offence Sentence Fine In default u/s 148 IPC RI for 1 year - - u/s 324/149 IPC RI for 2 years Rs.200/- RI for one month u/s 341 IPC - Rs.200/- RI for one month All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Noticing briefly, the facts set up by the prosecution had been that Daler Singh, the complainant had been doing labour work in a warehouse. On 22.2.2010, he was returning home after buying milk and curd from a shop near his village. At about 7.00 PM, when he was near Dooma Wala Mandir, Dakala Road, a bullet motorcycle stopped in front of him. It was driven by Jeji alias Bilu while Kala Kainthi and Lachhman alias Ladoo were riding its pillion. Another Hero Honda motorcycle driven by Bajaj with Ganja and Happy as its pillion riders came and stopped at his back. All these persons got down from their vehicles and made a circle around him. Kala alias Kainthi raised lalkara that the complainant should be taught a lesson for deposing against them in a murder case and gave a knife blow on his chest. Ganja caught hold of the right arm of the complainant and Lachhman gave a knife blow on the right arm of the complainant. The complainant fell down and Happy and Kala Kainthi gave knife blows to him. The complainant raised alarm which attracted people, on seeing whom, the assailants fled away. CRA-S-2337-SB-2011 (O&M) 3 .. I have heard Mr. Mohit Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. I have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the judgment of conviction of the appellant. He has limited his submissions to the aspect of quantum of sentence only. He has submitted that the appellant, as per the custody certificate dated 20.9.2012 filed by the State, has undergone 1 year 4 months and 18 days of sentence out of the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under section 324/149 IPC. He has submitted that the appellant, though, was present with the other accused, yet he is neither said to have been armed with a weapon nor is attributed any injury to the injured complainant. He has further submitted that for being with the assailants, he has already suffered sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year 4 months and 18 days out of the total sentence of 2 years awarded by learned trial court. He has thus, prayed for reducing the sentence of the appellant to the one already undergone by him. Learned State counsel has admitted that the appellant did not give any blow to the injured-complainant. He has submitted that however, the appellant had been a member of the unlawful assembly and he would be responsible for the acts of others committed in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant had been a member of a group of persons, out of whom many were armed with CRA-S-2337-SB-2011 (O&M) 4 .. deadly weapons. The object of that group was also not lawful. However, the fact that he was not possessing any weapon nor he caused any injury in any manner to the injured-complainant, can be taken into account to distinguish the case of the appellant from the case against others as also for awarding a different sentence. Taking into account the role of the appellant in the occurrence, I find that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the one already undergone by him. Consequently, upholding the judgment of conviction of the appellant, I partly accept the appeal and reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala to the one already undergone by him. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 20th , 2012 som