Pardeep @ Pappu v. State Of Haryana

CRR-1279-2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1279-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.09.2017 Pardeep @ Pappu ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Angel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Chopra, DAG, Haryana.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition against the judgment dated 17.11.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2014, of the trial Court, Gohana, convicting him under Sections 326, 452 and 506 IPC and the order of sentence dated 13.03.2014. 2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of petitioner on merits. He has prayed for some concession to the petitioner qua the quantum of sentence. 3.

Heard.

4.

According to the prosecution story, the petitioner threw acid on the face of victim-Pooja, on account of which she lost vision of her one eye. Due to the above illegal act of the petitioner the victim would suffer for her entire life. She is a widow lady having one minor child. The victim was thrown out of her matrimonial house by her in-laws after the death of her husband. The story putforth by the complainant/victim shows that even the Rishu Kataria 2017.09.29 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRR-1279-2017 (O&M) -2God is not kind upon her.

5.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve any concession qua quantum of sentence, more particularly, when there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below against him and the fact that the learned trial Court has already taken a very lenient view in awarding the sentence to the petitioner, inasmuch as the maximum punishment which can be granted under Section 326 is imprisonment for life, whereas the petitioner has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 years only. Hence, the instant revision petition being completely devoid of any merit is dismissed in toto. September 27, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Rishu Kataria 2017.09.29 12:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document