Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh Alias Gabri vs State Of Punjab on 19 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053025
CRA-S-324-2024 -1 -
2024:PHHC:053025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-324-2024 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 19.04.2024
SUKHDEV SINGH @ GABRI
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
CRM-4390-2024
Prayer in the present application is for suspension of sentence of
the applicant/appellant during the pendency of present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the
present application. He further prays for listing the main appeal for final
hearing.
Prayer is accepted.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
CRA-S-324-2024
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the
main appeal is taken on board for final hearing.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by accused Sukhbir Singh @
Gabri, challenging judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053025
CRA-S-324-2024 -2 -
12.10.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby the apellant-
Sukhbir Singh @ Gabri has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo
RI for three months for commission of offence under Section 379-B IPC; to
further undergo RI for a period of one year for commission of an offence under
Section 411 IPC.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant contends that he
does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant on merits. However,
he submits that in view of the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded
by the trial Court is on higher side.
4. Here it would be pertinent to mention that the appellant did not
challenge his conviction on merits and only confined his relief qua quantum of
sentence. This Court has also scrutinized the impugned judgment as well as the
relevant documents/evidence and is of the considered view that there is no
scope for any interference in impugned judgment as far as the conviction of the
appellant is concerned. As such, the conviction of the appellant is upheld.
5. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, there are mitigating
circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence awarded by the
trial court. Apart from the fact that the appellant has already faced the agony of
protracted trial since 2019, who is the sole bread winner of his family and has to
look after his old aged parents. Moreover, the appellant has already undergone
the actual sentence for a period of 4 years 6 months and 20 days out of total
substantive sentence of 5 years,. Thus, this court is of the considered view that a
chance be given to the petitioners to reform & improve himself; to become a
good citizen; and to lead a peaceful & harmonious life. Though, it is evident
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053025
CRA-S-324-2024 -3 -
that the appellant is also involved in another case under NDPS Act but in that
case he stands acquitted.
6. Taking into consideration the above narrated discussion as well as
the fact that the appellant has not challenged his conviction on merits, while
affirming his conviction, the order of sentence is modified to the extent to the
period already undergone by him with no change in fine clause.
7. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the
present appeal stands disposed off.
8. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith in case he is not
required in any other case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
19.04.2024 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
