Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2009 Date of decision: November 09, 2009 Jarnail Singh -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Ashok Giri Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioner Jarnail Singh had been convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar under Sections 332/353/506IPC vide judgment/order dated May 29, 2008 and was sentenced as under:- U/S 332 IPC RI for 2 years & to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. U/S 353 IPC RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further undergo RI for two months. U/S 506 IPC RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further undergo RI for two months. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence. The same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 8-4- 2009. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is limiting his Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2009 2 prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of the petitioner is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case, subject to payment of adequate compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: The present FIR was recorded on the statement of HC Jaswant Singh. On 12-8-2001 at about 9-00 PM HC Jaswant Singh along with SPO Ashwani Kumar was on duty at Behram Mandir at the occasion of Janam Asthami. He had gone to the STD of Annop Singh for making a call where Jarnail Singh alias Bittu along with some unidentified persons started hurling abuses to Parminder Singh @ Harminder Singh. When the complainant tried to stop them from doing so, the present petitioner raised a lalkara and gave a slap on his face. His companions also gave fist blows to the complainant and tore his uniform. Anoop Singh and SPO Ashwani Kumar rescued him from their clutches. While fleeing, the accused threatened the complainant that he would kill him. Later on the complainant came to know the names of the other unidentified persons. After completion of investigation, challan against all the accused was presented in the court. Finding a prima facie case, the accused were charged under Sections 186/332/353/506 IPC, to which they pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2009 3 examined as many as nine witnesses. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. They examined one witness in their defence evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the accused guilty of offence under Sections 332/353/506 IPC and sentenced them, as already indicated above. They were, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 186 IPC. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additoinal Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and have perused the judgments of both the Courts below. I am of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated while holding the petitioner guilty under Sections 332/353/506 IPC. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioner is a poor man, first offender, sole bread winner in the family and has already faced the agony of protracted trial for nine years. As per reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail Jalandhar, the petitioner had undergone 5 months & 22 days of substantive sentence as on 30-9-2009 i.e. 7 months till date. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2009 4 Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand). As the aggrieved person and the allegation is of assaulting and threatening a public servant while on duty, the amount of fine shall go to the State Legal Services Authority, Punjab. The petitioner is directed to deposit the said amount with the aforesaid Authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence, as awarded by the trial Court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge November 09, 2009. 'ask'