IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 1824-SB of 2002 Date of decision: 21st April, 2010 Avtar Singh and another … Appellants Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been filed by Avtar Singh and Lakhwinder Singh alias Jinder Singh. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur found them guilty of an offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellants were charged for offence under Section 120- B, 392 read with Section 397 IPC. They were also charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The trial Court, in para 31 of its judgment, stated that the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was to be dropped against the accused. The Court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused under Section 120, 392 and 397 IPC. For these offences, the present appellants were acquitted. Criminal Appeal No.1824-SB of 2002 No State appeal has been preferred. Co-accused of the appellants, namely Prem Singh and Sukhdev Singh have preferred no appeal. Another co-accused Kabul Singh was acquitted for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC also. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant Bohar Singh along with his uncle Gurmej Singh had built a house in his fields. On the night intervening 15th and 16th July, 1994, at about 11.45 p.m., some unknown persons came into their house. They ransacked the goods of the house and decamped along with cash, gold ornaments and .12 bore gun belonging to the complainant Bohar Singh. The Court relied upon the testimony of witnesses to hold that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused. However, the Court held that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the appellants for offences punishable under Section 392 and 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Counsel for the State has placed on record an affidavit of Lakhminder Singh Jakhar, PPS-I, Superintendent Central Jail, Ferozepur, according to which appellant Avtar Singh has undergone his entire sentence and appellant Lakhwinder Singh has undergone the actual sentence of one year one month and nineteen days out of the sentence of two years awarded by the trial Court. Mr. Sidhu has stated that since appellant Avtar Singh has undergone his entire sentence, he will not press the present appeal qua him and the same be dismissed as such. As prayed, appeal qua Avtar Singh appellant is dismissed as not pressed. 2 Criminal Appeal No.1824-SB of 2002 Mr. Sidhu has further stated that he will not assail the conviction of appellant Lakhwinder Singh but will make submissions qua quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case occurrence had taken place in the year 1994. The appellant Lakhwinder Singh is in the corridors of the Courts and has already suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial for about sixteen years. It is stated that at the time of occurrence, appellant Lakhwinder Singh was aged about 32 years. He is sole breadwinner of his family. I am of the view that the submissions made by counsel for the appellants qua appellant Lakhwinder Singh regarding reduction in his sentence can be given due credence. Taking into consideration protracted trial, age and the fact that the appellant Lakhwinder Singh is sole breadwinner of his family, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court can be reduced from two years to one year and three months rigorous imprisonment. With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 21, 2010 rps 3