Sarup Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.S-102-SB of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.05.2015 Sarup Singh and others ....Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: - Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Satpreet Kaur Kapila, Advocate, for Mr. Dhawaljeet Dutta, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the instant appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby appellants have been sentenced as under: - Name of convict Offence Sentence (RI) Fine In default (RI) Sarup Singh, Karan Singh Sukhwinder Singh Harpreet Singh Taqbir Singh Jaswinder Singh 148 IPC One year Rs.500/- 15 days Sarup Singh, Karan Singh Sukhwinder Singh Harpreet Singh Taqbir Singh Jaswinder Singh 323/149 IPC Six months -- -- Sarup Singh 325 IPC Two years Rs.1000/- One month

-2Name of convict Offence Sentence (RI) Fine In default (RI) Karan Singh Sukhwinder Singh Harpreet Singh Taqbir Singh Jaswinder Singh 325/149 IPC Two years Rs.1000/- One month All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment of the Court below and in view of the ultimate prayer of the appellants seeking reduction in sentence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants states that he is not pressing this appeal on merit and is not challenging the conviction on merit. He is only aggrieved against the sentence part. However, he prays that the sentence of the appellants be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on their heads like damocle's sword for the last ten years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat them leniently. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the FIR pertains to the year 2005 and since then a period of ten years has elapsed. The appellants have suffered the ordeal for long period and now have reformed. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that parties have compromised the matter and appellants are on bail. Ancient penological approach was custodial measure to curb crime. But in modern days, penological approach should be balanced keeping in view the needs of the community and interests of the accused:

-3such as compensation to the victims, release on admonition, probation etc. These are being adopted to reform the criminal convicts. The object of criminal justice system is to reform the offenders and to make them see and follow the right path. Otherwise also jails are often overcrowded.

In view of the compromise between the parties and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, which have been noted above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellants behind the bars further as the appellants faced ordeal for a long period. It is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the appellants can be reduced to already undergone. Ordered accordingly. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and, including default clause, stand affirmed with aforesaid modification. The appellants are stated to be on bail. However, it goes without saying that if the amount of fine is not deposited, the appellants will serve the remaining part of sentence.

With the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of.

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge May 29, 2015 R.S.