Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sachin Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 March, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
CRR-2414-2022 -1-
2024:PHHC:034766
265 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2414-2022
Decided on: 11.03.2024
Sachin Kumar .... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed impugning the judgment
dated 21.07.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide
whereby it upheld the judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot wherein respondents-accused were
convicted and sentenced as under:
Offence Name of the Imprisonme Fine Imprisonment
accused nt in default of
fine
Section 325 Amandeep R.I. for one Rs.500/- RI for two
IPC Singh @ Raju year months
Section Jagdeep Singh RI for one Rs.500/- RI for two
325/34 IPC @ Bhola and year for each months
Manjit Singh
Section 323 Jagdeep Singh RI for six Rs.200/- RI for one
IPC @ Bhola and months each month
Manjit Singh
Section Amandeep RI for six Rs.2500/- One month
323/34 IPC Singh @ Raju months
All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2024:PHHC:034766
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
learned Appellate Court rightly upheld the judgment passed by the
learned CJM, Faridkot holding the accused persons guilty of offences
under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC, however, it erred in wrongly
releasing all the accused persons on probation for a period of one year
along with the following conditions:
(i) to appear in the Court to undergo sentence as and
when they are called upon to do so.
(ii) not to breach peace or to do any act on account of
which peace is breached;
(iii) and be of good conduct and not to commit any offence.
Learned counsel has further asserted that since the case of
prosecution had been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the ocular
testimony of the complainant found due corroboration with the medical
evidence on record, the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2022 deserved
to be set aside. Rather the accused-respondents deserved to be
sentenced to the maximum as prescribed for offences under Section 325
IPC.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
relevant material on record including the impugned judgment.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, on 29.11.2015, on receipt
of the MLR of the petitioner/complainant Sachin, ASI Baljit Singh reached
GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. On arrival at the hospital,
the statement of the petitioner-complainant was recorded wherein he
stated that while visiting the shop of his father-in-law he encountered
2024:PHHC:034766
respondent-accused No.3 Amandeep Singh @ Raju, a dispute arose
between them with respect to some money, which led to a verbal
altercation between them. Later, his father-in-law pacified them and sent
them way. However, later, respondent No.3 accompanied by co-accused
Manjit Singh @ Giani and his brother Jagdeep Singh @ Bhola attacked
the petitioner-complainant, damaging his car and also causing him
injuries. The motive as spelt out in the FIR was stemming from accused
Raju's refusal to repay the money. The accused thereafter physically
assaulted the petitioner-complainant. Injury No.1 sustained by the
petitioner was opined to be grievous in nature, which was a fracture of
one of his teeth, while two other injuries sustained by the petitioner-
complainant were opined to be simple in nature.
5. Admittedly and as not disputed, both the parties are closely
related being first cousins. The injury attracting the mischief of Section
325 IPC was fracture of tooth of the petitioner-complainant. All other
injuries were opined to be simple in nature. This Court does not find any
infirmity with the impugned order whereby the accused were released on
probation subject to certain conditions. It has not been disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel that in
the preceding years after the occurrence in question, the accused have
maintained good conduct and have not been involved in any other
criminal case. It has also not been disputed that after the passing of the
impugned order, which was contingent to certain conditions, the accused
had not misused the those conditions. The accused, admittedly, had
been facing the agony of a protracted trial since the year 2015.
2024:PHHC:034766
Hence, sentencing them and sending them behind bars at this stage,
would serve no useful purpose as it cannot be overlooked that the
ultimate goal of the criminal justice system in a modern civilized society is
to attempt at the reformation of the offender. Incarceration may not
always be necessitated in every case when the offender has had an
opportunity to repent for his/her wrongs. This Court in the aforementioned
circumstances does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment passed by the Appellate Court.
6. As a sequel to the above, the present petition being devoid of
any merit stands dismissed.
11.03.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
