Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheelo Alias Rupo vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055961
CRR No. 1380-2022 (O&M) -1 -
2024:PHHC:055961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1380-2022 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 24.04.2024
SHEELO @ RUPO
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The instant revision has been preferred by Sheelo @ Rupo,
challenging judgment dated 24.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 13.02.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra,
in case bearing FIR No. 548, dated 16.11.2015, under Section 379 IPC,
registered at Police Station, Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra has been
upheld, vide which, the accused - petitioner has been convicted and sentenced
to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in
default thereof, to undergo further RI for six months for commission of offence
under Section 411 IPC.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055961
view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, he does not want to
challenge the conviction of the petitioner. However, he submits that in view of
the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded by the Courts below is on
higher side.
3. Here it would be pertinent to mention that petitioner did not
challenge his conviction on merits and only confined his relief qua quantum of
sentence. This Court has also scrutinized the impugned judgment(s) as well as
the relevant documents/evidence and is of the considered view that there is no
scope for any interference in impugned judgment(s) as far as the conviction of
the petitioner is concerned. As such, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld.
4. 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 and upheld by the appellate court. Apart from the fact that petitioner
has faced the agony of protracted trial since 2015 after registration of the instant
case, who is a poor lady and has to look after her daughter after the death of her
husband and son. Moreover, petitioner has already undergone the actual
sentence of 2 years 8 months and 16 days, as of now out of total substantive
sentence of three years. Thus, this court is of the considered view that a chance
be given to the petitioner to reform & improve herself; to become a good
citizen; and to lead a peaceful & harmonious life.
5. Taking into consideration the above narrated discussion as well as
the fact that petitioner 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 her with no change in fine clause.
6. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055961
revision petition stands disposed off. Petitioner be released forthwith in case
she is not required in any other case.
7. All the pending criminal misc. applications are also disposed off.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
