PRABHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of conviction, dated 10.6.2002, and the order of sentence, dated 12.6.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the appellant, Prabhu Dayal, was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and ordered to undergo the following sentences:- Under Section Sentence (R.I.) Fine (in Rs.) In Default (R.I.) 307, IPC 4 years 1,000/- 1 month 25, Arms Act 1 year 500/- 15 days Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the clinching nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution, he does not want to impugn the order of conviction of the appellant, Prabhu Dayal. However, in view of the material available on record, the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be modified. In support of his contention, he submits that the appellant, Prabhu Dayal, is the younger brother of one Narender, who is brother-inlaw (Jija) of the complainant/victim, Ram Niwas; the motive for the quarrel was that 4/5 years prior to the occurrence, Prabhu Dayal had written a letter to his brother, Narender, that he would commit the murder of Narender and Ram Niwas; during said 4/5 years, no untoward incident had taken place; as per the prosecution version, the victim, Ram Niwas, had not sustained injuries, rather it was the appellant, Prabhu Dayal, who sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body; the appellant, Prabhu Dayal, is not a previous convict; and that he has already suffered incarceration for approximately one year. He further submits that during pendency of the appeal the substantive sentences of the appellant were suspended and he was ordered to be released on bail, but the said concession was not misused by him ( Prabhu Dayal). Even during incarceration in the jail, the appellant had behaved properly and tried to improve himself.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has produced the affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon, showing the period of incarceration suffered by the appellant, which is taken on record. He has not controverted the factual aspects narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he submits that the learned Trial Court has already taken a lenient view while awarding the substantive sentences and, as such, there is no scope for further reduction of the substantive sentences in the case in hand.