KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was named in FIR No. 97 dated 29.09.1997, registered at Police Station G.R.P.S., Sirsa, but during investigation, was found innocent and thereafter, was summoned under Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') to face trial. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and under Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, in Session Case No. 3 of 1998/2002, vide judgment and order dated 07.04.2003 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

(2.) APPEAL preferred by the petitioner in this Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No.S -929 -SB of 2003, 'Kuldeep Singh son of Jagga Singh Vs. State of Haryana', was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure P -2), in which, conviction under Sections 307 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC has been upheld, however, this Court has interfered in the quantum of sentence under Section 307 IPC only, by reducing it to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years from 10 years. The appeal stands dismissed except for the modification in sentence for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that while imposing the sentence vide order dated 07.04.2013, the trial Court did not mention as to whether the sentences awarded under different sections would run consecutively or concurrently. Similarly, in the appeal which was preferred by the petitioner i.e. Criminal Appeal No. S -929 -SB of 2003, it has not been specified in this regard. Counsel submits that although the High Court had not interfered on the quantum of sentence for offence punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC, but for offence under Section 307 IPC, it was reduced to 3 years from the original 10 years sentence for the reason that the complainant had compromised the matter with the petitioner which was treated as a mitigating circumstance. Another circumstance which weighed on the mind of the Court was that the occurrence took place in September, 1997 and a period of 16 years had elapsed since the date of incidence. Since the sentence for Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC is 3 years and for Section 307 IPC is also 3 years, these sentences should be treated to run concurrently and not consecutively in the absence of any specific mention thereof in the order sentencing the petitioner. Counsel contends that during petitioner's confinement in Jail, he has earned remissions because of his good conduct. By giving credit of remissions earned, petitioner has completed his sentence of 3 years on 03.06.2015 and the further custody of the petitioner in District Jail, Sirsa, is illegal and therefore, an order releasing him be passed by this Court.