NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment and order dated 27.10.2004, petitioner was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 326, 325, 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of an offence under Section 326 IPC. He was also directed to undergo RI for one year for commission of an offence under Section 325 IPC and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. For commission of an offence under Section 324 IPC, he was directed to undergo RI for six months and for violation of Section 323 IPC, he was directed to undergo RI for three months. He went in appeal, which was dismissed. Hence, this revision.

(2.) RECORD shows that complainant Tarsem Singh filed a criminal complainant for commission of offences, as referred to above, against petitioner and one Harbhajan Singh. After recording preliminary evidence, both of them were summoned to face trial. On conclusion of trial, Harbhajan Singh was acquitted, however, petitioner Nirmal Singh was convicted and sentenced, as found mentioned in earlier para of this judgment.

(3.) IT is not necessary to refer to further details as Mr. Brar, appearing for the petitioner has confined his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. Counsel argued that alleged occurrence had taken place on 26.5.1987. Petitioner continued to face agony of trial till 27.10.1990. Thereafter, his appeal remained pending which was dismissed on 5.1.1993. Then he filed the present revision in this Court. During this period, counsel argued that petitioner might have suffered financially and mentally as well. A lurking fear, that he will be sent behind the bars, on one day or the other, has its desired effect which has resulted into reforming petitioner. Counsel states that after commission of this offence, petitioner has not indulged into any other offence of the like nature. Counsel further brought it to the notice of the Court that petitioner is the only bread winner for his family and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, his entire family will suffer. It has further been stated that petitioner and the complainant are the co-villagers and if at this stage, petitioner is asked to undergo remaining part of the sentence, it will not be conducive towards peace and harmony in the village, rather it will have a negative effect. Counsel further states that during trial and after conviction, petitioner had remained in jail for more than one month and he prays that sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by him.