Crl. Rev. No. 2605 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.2605 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.12.2009 Ram Kishan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. Petitioner Ram Kishan had been convicted by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, under Sections 420, 427 & 386 IPC, vide judgment/order dated 11th December, 2007 and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 420 IPC, RI for one year under Section 427 IPC and RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 386 IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction/sentence. The judgment of the trial court was modified by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot and it was held that the loss was not caused to the complainant directly by the accused/appellant as the complainant suffered the loss by digging out the floors of his house as the accused had made him to believe that there was some hidden treasure in the house. The learned Additional Sessions acquitted the appellant/petitioner of the charge under Section 427 IPC, however, Crl. Rev. No. 2605 of 2009 2 maintained the conviction and sentence under Sections 420 and 386 IPC. 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 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. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: An affidavit was submitted by Varinder Kumar complainant before Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot stating that he constructed a new house at village Kotha Guru and for the purpose of “Pooja” he invited the petitioner and paid his “Bheta”. But the petitioner put the complainant in superstition and caused a loss of Rs.25,000/- to him and he turned the petitioner out of his house with great difficulty. The petitioner misguided the complainant and black mailed him. The petitioner threatened the complainant by saying that he had links with terrorists and in case money is not paid to him, then he will get his entire family killed. Due to fear, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner but he was not satisfied and on his asking, Crl. Rev. No. 2605 of 2009 3 the complainant again paid Rs.8000/-. The aforesaid amount was paid to him by the complainant in the presence of Gurmej Singh, but the petitioner demanded Rs.30,000/- more. On the basis of the said affidavit, a case was registered. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused/petitioner was presented in court. Finding a prima facie case, the petitioner was charged under Sections 420, 427 and 386 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He denied the allegations of prosecution. The accused/ petitioner examined one witness Balwinder Kaur as DW1 and closed his evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed with some modification, referred to above. I have perused the evidence on record minutely and gone through the impugned judgments. I am of the considered view that the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated while holding the petitioner guilty of the charge Crl. Rev. No. 2605 of 2009 4 framed against him. The conviction of the petitioner under Sections 420 & 386 IPC 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 first offender and is a poor man. As per reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent, District Jail, Faridkot, the petitioner had undergone 02 months and 06 days of substantive sentence as on 11.11.2009. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the petitioner is stated to be first offender and is a poor man, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him but sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of 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) December 16, 2009 JUDGE 'rajpal'