SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the intervening night of 31/7/1986/1/8/1986. It was allegation against the appellant that he had entered the residential house of Mithu Singh, injured and assaulted him with knife. FIR No. 204 dated 1/8/1986 was recorded against him under Sections 307 and 452 of IPC. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted before the competent court. Charges were framed for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 452 IPC. Prosecution then led evidence to prove its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him. In defence, he produced one Kartar Singh as DWI and closed his evidence. Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, as led by both the parties and looking into the entire record, came to a conclusion that prosecution had failed to make out any case under Section 307 IPC, however, appellant was found guilty of commission of an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 452 IPC and was convicted and sentenced in undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 for commission of an offence under Section 324 IPC. He was also sentenced to under go RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 150.00 for commission of an offence under Section 452 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo RI for two months and three months respectively.

(2.) It is not necessary to refer to further details of this case, as counsel appearing for the appellant has addressed arguments, only regarding quantum of sentence.

(3.) Mr. Bawa, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that appellant was of 24 years of age, when the alleged occurrence took place. May be due to but young age, without knowing the consequences of his act, he had committed that offence. He further stated that how he is a grown up individual and is residing with his family in a very peaceful manner. It is further contended that sword of conviction had been hanging over the head of the appellant for the last 16 years and it had its desired effect of reforming him. Counsel further states that after his conviction in this case, appellant had not involved in any other criminal activity. He is the only bread earner of his family and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, it is likely to have an adverse effect, not only on him but also on his family. Peace and tranquillity in the village is likely to be affected. Counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court that appellant had spent about four months behind the bars, before he was granted bail by the competent court. By referring to above mentioned facts, counsel prays that sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the one already undergone.