Gurdev Singh vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 16294 P&H

CRR-1604-2022 (O&M)                                                     1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.224                                      CRR-1604-2022 (O&M)
                                                Date of decision : 9.12.2022

Gurdev Singh
                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                                    ..... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:     Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner


             Mr.Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab


AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the

judgment dated 29.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2018, rendered

by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, vide which he had been

convicted and sentenced as under:

     Offence u/s                                   Imprisonment
186 IPC                 RI for 3 months
353 IPC                RI for 1 year
506 IPC                RI for 1 year

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Briefly put, the prosecution case is that on 03.08.2015, when

1 of 6

ASI Balkar Singh alongwith other police officials were present at Ghanta

Ghar Chowk during patrolling duty, one HC Subash Chand posted at Police

Line, Sangur got recorded his statement before him stating therein that at

about 11.40 am he was present in bakshikhana, District Court, Sangrur as

guard. When he alongwith other police officials had been confining the

inmates in Bakshikhana of Civil Court at Sangrur for hearing one inmate

Gurdev Singh, started abusing him and when he tried to stop him, he gave

fist blow and had also torn his dress. He assaulted and obstructed him in

discharging his official duties and threatened to kill him. On the said

statement, FIR No.207 dated 3.8.2015, under Sections 353, 186, 506 IPC

was registered at Police Station City Sangrur.

3. After completion of investigation, final report under Section

173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court against the accused- petitioner. On

finding a prima facie case, charges under the aforesaid Sections were

framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused

examined as many as 7 PWs. On closure of the prosecution evidence,

statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C.. He denied all the incriminating circumstances that appeared against

him in the prosecution case while pleading innocence and to be implicated

falsely by the police at the instance of one Gamdoor Singh as he was

inimical towards him. However, he did not examine any witness in his

defence.

5. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the

parties, convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed in para 1.

2 of 6

6. Aggrieved petitioner, challenged the said judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, by filing an appeal before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which was dismissed vide judgment

29.4.2022, affirming judgment of the trial Court.

7. Being dissatisfied, the accused-petitioner has preferred the

present revision petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, gives up

his challenge to his conviction, however, prays for modification of the order

of his sentence awarded to the period as already undergone on account of

the facts, namely; the petitioner is a poor person of 30 year age; he is the

sole breadwinner of the family; he has already undergone about 5 month

imprisonment out of the total substantive sentence of one year and

moreover, no independent witness was joined as witness and no MLR was

conducted and he has also faced agony of trial since the date of incident i.e.

3.8.2015.

9. Opposing this, the learned counsel for the State submits that

the learned Courts below after appreciating every aspect of the matter have

rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner, therefore, he prays for the

dismissal of the present petition.

10. Heard.

11. Though, the petitioner has given up his challenge to the

conviction and has prayed for reduction of his sentence as having been

undergone, in view of the mitigation circumstances as mentioned above.

However, still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the judgments of

the Courts below. The learned trial Court had thoroughly examined the

3 of 6

evidence and observed that the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt against the petitioner on the basis of the testimony of the

PW-2 HC Subhash Chand categorically stated in his statement before the

Court that he was posted as guard in the Bakshikhana and on 3.8.2015,

when the inmates were lodged there, the accused-petitioner started abusing

him and gave fist blows. He had torn his dress. The said statement was fully

corroborated by PW-1 ASI Baldev Singh and PW-6 ASI Gamdoor Singh.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge in appeal filed by the petitioner had

also considered all aspects of the matter and only thereafter, upheld the

judgment of the conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and observed

that non-examination of independent witness was not fatal to the

prosecution case, when it is based on cogent and convincing evidence of the

official witnesses. Accordingly, both the Courts below after having

scrutinized the evidence on record have rightly convicted the petitioner and

there is no scope for interference in the concurrent findings recorded by

both the Courts below. As such, the conviction of the petitioner is affirmed.

12. Regarding the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that in view of the aforestated mitigating circumstances, the sentence of the

petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone, it is apposite to

make a reference to the judgments of Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India

in the case of Haripada Das vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678, Hon'ble

The Supreme Court of India has held as under:

"....considering the fact that the respondent had already

undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also

4 of 6

considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...."

13. The observations as relevant to the present case, made by

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of R.Soundarajan vs. Seed

Inspector, Coimbatore and another, 2006(4) RCR (Crl.) 645 read thus:-

"26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment."

14. It is settled proposition of law that each case is to be decided

on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.

15. Adverting to the mitigating circumstances, as brought out by

the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case, are that the

petitioner belongs to the poor strata of the society, is the sole breadwinner

of the family, he has undergone a period of sentence of about 5 months, out

of a total sentence of 1 year awarded to him and has faced the pangs of a

prolonged trial from 03.08.2015, the date of incident. In view of the

aforesaid and the judgments referred to above, the ends of justice would be

5 of 6

adequately met if the sentence of the petitioner is ordered to be reduced to

the period already undergone by him.

16. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld while

modifying the order of sentence to the period already undergone by

petitioner. However, fine shall remain intact.

17. With the aforesaid modification in the order of sentence dated

16.8.2018 , the criminal revision petition stands partly allowed.

9.12.2022                                          (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
gsv                                                    JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned                      :      Yes    / No
Whether reportable                         :          Yes /   No




                                  6 of 6