Present: Mr. R.S.Bains Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1061827
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-04-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. R.S.Bains Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
cra-s-2456-sb o”1. in the high court of punjab and haryanaat chandigarh cra-s-2456-sb of 2012 date of decision: may 04, 2013. rinku @ amit kumar ..appellant versus state of haryana ..respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh 1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.2) to be referred to the reporters or no.?.3) whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?. present: mr.r.s.bains, advocate, for the appellant. mr.sandeep s. mann, sr.dag, haryana. *** paramjeet singh, j. present criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant – rinku @ amit kumar who was named as an accused in case fir no.112 dated 17.06.2009, registered at police station chhachhrauli, under sections 307/34 of the indian penal code and 25/54/59 of the arms act. the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 22.05.2012 found the appellant guilty of offence under section 307 of the indian penal code cra-s-2456-sb o”2. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of rs.5000/-, in default, whereof, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. i need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment of the learned trial court and in view of the ultimate prayer of the appellant seeking reduction in sentence. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. learned counsel for the appellant contended 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. the learned counsel further contended that sentence of the appellant be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like damocle's sword for the last approximately four years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently. the learned counsel further contended that fir pertains to the year 2009 and since then a period of approximately four years has elapsed. the appellant is the sole bread winner of his family and has suffered the ordeal for long period. the learned counsel further contended that the appellant has undergone 3 years and 10 months out of sentence awarded to him. in view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, this court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by cra-s-2456-sb o”3. keeping the appellant behind the bars as the appellant already faced ordeal approximately four years.it is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone by him. ordered accordingly. the impugned order of sentence and conviction as well as default clause stands affirmed with aforesaid modification. if the fine amount is not deposited, the appellant will serve the remaining part of sentence. the appellant will be released, if not required in any other case and on payment of the fine amount, if not paid. the period of sentence shall stand reduced upto actual release of the appellant as aforesaid. with the observations made above, present appeal is disposed of. may 04, 2013 [ paramjeet singh ].parveen kumar judge
Judgment:

CRA-S-2456-SB o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-2456-SB of 2012 Date of Decision: May 04, 2013.

Rinku @ Amit Kumar ..Appellant Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.2) To be referred to the Reporters or No.?.3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.

Present: Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr.Sandeep S.

Mann, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

*** Paramjeet Singh, J.

Present criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant – Rinku @ Amit Kumar who was named as an accused in case FIR No.112 dated 17.06.2009, registered at Police Station Chhachhrauli, under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.

The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 22.05.2012 found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code CRA-S-2456-SB o”

2. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, whereof, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment of the learned trial Court and in view of the ultimate prayer of the appellant seeking reduction in sentence.

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

Learned counsel for the appellant contended 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.

The learned counsel further contended that sentence of the appellant be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on his head like Damocle's sword for the last approximately four years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat him leniently.

The learned counsel further contended that FIR pertains to the year 2009 and since then a period of approximately four years has elapsed.

The appellant is the sole bread winner of his family and has suffered the ordeal for long period.

The learned counsel further contended that the appellant has undergone 3 years and 10 months out of sentence awarded to him.

In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by CRA-S-2456-SB o”

3. keeping the appellant behind the bars as the appellant already faced ordeal approximately four yeaRs.It is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Ordered accordingly.

The impugned order of sentence and conviction as well as default clause stands affirmed with aforesaid modification.

If the fine amount is not deposited, the appellant will serve the remaining part of sentence.

The appellant will be released, if not required in any other case and on payment of the fine amount, if not paid.

The period of sentence shall stand reduced upto actual release of the appellant as aforesaid.

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

May 04, 2013 [ Paramjeet Singh ].parveen kumar Judge