Crl. Revision No. 2224 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2224 of 2009 Date of decision: March 4, 2011 Kuku ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner/accused, Kuku son of Jai Lal, was charged for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC for having kidnapped one boy, named Sunny and one girl, named Babbo, aged 5 and 7 years respectively, with the intention to wrongfully and secretly confining them. He was tried for that offence by JMIC, Jalandhar, and was convicted vide judgment dated 20.8.2007 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. He preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 6.8.2009. However, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from one year to nine Crl. Revision No. 2224 of 2009 2 months. The facts, in brief, are that the above named children were of Jaswinder Singh and were students of Government Primary School, Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Adda Hoshiarpur. On 27.7.1999, at about 9 a.m., Amrik Singh-complainant (PW-2) was standing outside his shop when he saw the accused taking those children towards the school. Instead of entering the school, he took them ahead and took a turn towards Tanda Railway Crossing. When the complainant asked from the school children as to whether the accused was an employee of the school, they answered in the negative. He accompanied by Sheela went after the accused and recovered the children from him and at that time the accused tried to impress upon the complainant that they were the children by his brother and that he was taking them to his house situated in Bashirpura. About all these facts, the complainant made his statement Ex. PA before the Satnam Singh, ASI (PW- 3), who, after recording his police proceedings Ex. PA/1, sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PC was recorded against accused under Section 365 IPC. The accused was arrested by the ASI and the memo of his arrest Ex. PD was prepared. The ASI inspected the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. Both the children were entrusted to their father Jaswinder Singh vide memo Ex. PB. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the JMIC. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined Harbans Kaur (PW-1), Amrik Singh (PW-2), Satnam Singh, ASI (PW-3), Sushil Kumar (PW-4), Jaswinder Singh, HC (PW-5), Jaswinder Crl. Revision No. 2224 of 2009 3 Singh ASI (PW-6) and Babbu (PW-7). After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was examined by the trial court and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded his innocence and false implication. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused did not assail the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He confined his argument only to the quantum of sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the accused. He submitted that he has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and stood protracted trial for a couple of years and that the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the circumferences in which the same was committed and also the fact that the accused stood protracted trial for a period of more than 10 years, the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon him is reduced to six months. The period during which he was under detention in connection with the present FIR shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment of six months, as provided under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Crl. Revision No. 2224 of 2009 4 Accused be taken into custody, if he has not served the sentence of imprisonment of six months, as aforesaid. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. March 4, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE