CRA No.462-SB of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.462-SB of 2001 Date of decision : 10.12.2010 Gulzar Singh alias Gora ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG, Haryana. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC and awarded sentence as under:- Under Section 363 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months CRA No.462-SB of 2001 -2- Under Section 366-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ` 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months Under Section 376 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of ` 4,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months 2. Learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits. He has prayed for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the prosecutrix was not examined as she died during trial. Therefore, the question whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, remained unsettled. The appellant was 22 years of age at the time of occurrence. The FIR in the instant case pertains to the year 1998. The appellant has suffered protracted trial for more than 10 years. The appellant remained in jail for 3 years 2 months in this case. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case against the appellant stands fully proved and the appellant does not deserve any leniency. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In Keshav Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2005(2) RCR (Crl.) 933, this Court, in a case under Section 376 IPC, reduced the sentence to two years’ RI from seven years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (SC), 2007(2) RCR CRA No.462-SB of 2001 -3- (Crl.) 305, also reduced the sentence to three years in a case under Section 376 IPC. The appellant in this case has already undergone three years two months of actual sentence. 6. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC is on a higher side. The appellant was enlarged on bail by this Court on 22.08.2001. He has not misused the concession of bail. He is not a previous convict. He is married and the only bread-earner in the family. Therefore, sending the appellant to jail once again at this juncture would be a hard step. 7. In my opinion, ends of justice would be amply met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone subject to the payment of enhanced fine of ` 15,000/- to be paid to the complainant within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. I order accordingly. However, in the event of failure to deposit the aforesaid fine, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 8. In the result, the conviction of the appellant is maintained and order of sentence is modified to the above extent. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 10.12.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes / No