KULDIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice in this Revision Petition was issued only in regard to sentence at the Motion stage. The facts of the case ill brief are that on the night intervening September 22/23, 1981, Vijay Kumar P.W. was sleeping in front of his factory. His father Basbambar Dass and uncle Labu Ram were also sleeping close -by on separate cots. The petitioner reached there at about 3.50 a.m. and after challenging Vijay Kumar for being a lover of Shanta telling him that he would be taught a lesson, he threw acid from a bottle at the face, chest, right turn and left arm of Vijay Kumar, The victim was immediately removed to the hospital where he was medically examined by Dr. Kirpal Singh (P.W.5). He was found to possess as many as nine burn injuries on the upper part of his body. The material injury No. 1 is reproduced below : -

(2.) THE petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, under section 326, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to two years Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, converted the conviction of the petitioner to one under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to one year's Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentence of fine was remitted.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence. There is no gain saying that the petitioner acted in a most irresponsible manner by throwing acid on the face and the upper part of the body of Vijay Kumar. The injury on the face noticed in the earlier part of the judgment, indicates its serious nature, as it involved the entire Head area right from the hair down to the chin, including both the eyes. Indeed the petitioner is a youngman of about 28 years but he should have known better before committing such a heinous assault which has permanently disfigures the victim. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner way be granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, but I do not find the present to be a fit case where this concession should be allowed. The petitioner is said to have undergone more than three months of confinement during the trial and after his conviction. In these circumstances, it would not be expedient for the moral health of the petitioner to send him back to Jail to undergo a short sentence of imprisonment. Consequently his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of confinement already undergone by him. However, the petitioner is ordered to pay a fine of Rupees Two thousand. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo six months further Rigorous Imprisonment. The total fine, if recovered from the petitioner shall be paid to Vijay Kumar, the injured person, as compensation for his injuries.