Sarabjit Rai And Ors vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 6448 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sarabjit Rai And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2024

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041112



                                                       2024:PHHC:041112
CRR-3566-2015                                                                    1
230           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          CHANDIGARH

                                               CRR-3566-2015 (O&M)
                                               Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
SARABJIT RAI AND OTHERS
                                                                  ...Petitioners
                                V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                 ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present: Mr. Vikram Preet Arora, Advocate
         for the petitioners.
            Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab.
                                   ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment

dated 14.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot

vide which judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated

07.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot in

FIR No. 157 dated 12.10.2008 filed under Sections 452, 324, 323, 506 and

34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Pathankot, has

been upheld. The petitioners were sentenced as under:

     Name      Offences          Period of                       Fine
                under            Sentence
               Sections
Sarabjit Rai 452 IPC          Three Years Rs. 3000/- in default of
                              Rigorous       payment of fine to further
                              Imprisonment undergo                rigorous
                                             imprisonment of three months
               324 IPC        Two      Years Rs. 2000/- in default of
                              Rigorous       payment of fine to further
                              Imprisonment undergo                rigorous
                                             imprisonment for two months
               323/34 IPC     Six    Months Rs. 1000/- in default of
                              Rigorous       payment of fine to further
                              Imprisonment undergo               Rigorous
                                             Imprisonment of one one
                                             month


                                      1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041112

2024:PHHC:041112

Sukhjit Rai 452 IPC Three Years Rs. 3000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months 324 IPC Two Years Rs. 2000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 323 IPC Six Months Rs. 1000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one one month Jagdis Raj 452 IPC Three Years Rs. 3000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months 324/34 IPC Two Years Rs. 2000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 323 IPC Six Months Rs. 1000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one one month Sarwan 452 IPC Three Years Rs. 3000/- in default of Kumar Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months 324/34 IPC Two Years Rs. 2000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 323 IPC Six Months Rs. 1000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one one month

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 12.10.2008 ASI

Gurbachan along with other police officials in relation to routine patrolling

and vehicle checking were present at Chotti Nehar, Byepass Bharoli Kalan,

there. Complainant in this case namely Ashwani Kumar came present and

handed over four MLRs pertaining to himself, Ganesh Kumar, Raj Kumar

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041112

2024:PHHC:041112

and Bimla Devi to the investigating officer. At the same time complainant

got recorded his statement with ASI Gurbachan Singh. The brief contents of

the same are that on 02.10.2008, he came to his native place from Greece

where he is permanently settled. On 10.10.2008 he along with his brother

Ganesh Kumar, Raj Kumar and his wife Bimla Devi were sitting in the

court yard of their house. At that time lights placed there were glowing At

about 8.00 PM accused Sarabjit alias Sonu, armed with Kirpan, Sukhjit Rai

armed with datar, Jagdish Raj armed with kirpan and Sarwan Kumar armed

with stick came and started abusing the complainant and his family.

Thereafter, accused/petitioners opened the gate and entered into the house

of the complainant. Accused Sarabjit raised lalkara and said that today teach

them a lesson for coming to their house on the day of Dushera and making

complaints. On this accused Sukhjit Rai gave two datar blows on the person

of the complainant. First blow struck near the thumb of right hand and the

second struck on the left palm. The above said blows struck on the above

said places on the person of the complainant when the complainant tried to

save himself from the above said blows. Thereafter, accused Sarabjit Rai

gave two kirpan blows which hit on the left side of the back of the com-

plainant. Thereafter, accused raised hue and cry. Brother of complainant

Ganesh Kumar in order to save the complainant came there. Thereafter, ac-

cused Jagdish Raj gave two blows of Kirpan on the person of Ganesh Ku-

mar. First blow struck a little above on the left eye brow and the second

blow struck on the nose of Ganesh Kumar. Thereafter, accused Sarwan Ku-

mar gave two stick blows on the person of Ganesh Kumar. First blow struck

on the back side of the head and the second blow hit on the right shoulder of

Ganesh Kumar. On this Raj Kumar brother of the complainant came for-

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041112

2024:PHHC:041112

ward to save his brother, then accused Sukhjit Rai gave two blows with the

handle of the datar which hit on the person of Raj Kumar. First blow hit on

the left side of the head and the second hit on the right side of the head of

Raj Kumar. Accused Sarwan Kumar gave two stick blows to Raj Kumar

which hit a little above over the right ear in the head and the second hit on

the left cephalic region. Raj Kumar became unconscious and fell on the

ground. Thereafter, wife of complainant namely Bimla Devi came forward

and on this accused Sarabjit gave two blows of kirpan. In order to save her-

self from the blows Bimla Devi put her both hands and due to this the said

blows struck on the lett hand fingers of Bimla Devi. Thereafter, accused

Jagdish Raj gave two blows on the person of the complainant which struck

a little blow the neck and on the left palm of the complainant, respectively.

The entire incident was witnessed by Sanjiv Kumar, Gurdas Mal and Mo-

hinder Pal. Thereafter, accused went away with their respective weapons.

Mohinder Pal arranged for a vehicle and took the complainant, Ganesh Ku-

mar, Raj Kumar and Bimla Devi to the hospital where all the above injured

were given first aid and were also medico legally examined. The reasons be-

hind the above incident is stated that on 09.09.2008 on the occasion of

Dushera, son of complainant namely Lovely and his nephew Rahul Sharma

went to Sarna to watch Dushera function. There accused Sukhjit Rai abused

his son and nephew. Thereafter, the son of the complainant narrated the

whole incident to the complainant. On this the complainant along with his

brother Ganesh Kumar went to the house of accused Sukhjit Rai for making

complaint in this regard. There a dispute took place with Sarabjit Rai. Due

to this reason the accused persons have injured the complainant and his

family members. It is further stated that till date the respectable tried their

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041112

2024:PHHC:041112

best to get the compromise effected but the same could not happen. Lastly,

the complainant prayed for necessary action. Accused were arrested

on 12.10.2008. During the investigation statement of the witnesses were

recorded. After completion of investigation and other necessary formalities

the challan was presented before the court.

3. The petitioners were convicted vide judgement dated 07.02.2013

by the learned trial Court which has also been upheld by lower appellate

court 14.08.2015, however, the order of quantum of sentence was modified

to the extent as follows:

     Name      Offences            Period of                       Fine
                under              Sentence
               Sections
Sarabjit Rai 452 IPC            One and half Rs. 3000/- in default of

year Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months 324 IPC One year Rs. 2000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 323/34 IPC Six Months Rs. 1000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one one month Sukhjit Rai 452 IPC One and half Rs. 3000/- in default of year Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months 324 IPC One year Rs. 2000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 323 IPC Six Months Rs. 1000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one one month Jagdis Raj 452 IPC One and half Rs. 3000/- in default of year Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months

5 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041112

2024:PHHC:041112

324/34 IPC One year Rs. 2000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 323 IPC Six Months Rs. 1000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one one month Sarwan 452 IPC One and half Rs. 3000/- in default of Kumar year Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months 324/34 IPC One year Rs. 2000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 323 IPC Six Months Rs. 1000/- in default of Rigorous payment of fine to further Imprisonment undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one one month

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not as-

sailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2013 on merits

and restricts his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence

to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners as have already

undergone a period of 03 months 23 days, and are not involved in any other

criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the

petitioners as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment

based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record which has

also been upheld by the learned lower Appellant Court and as such, they do

not deserve any leniency.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

with their able assistance.

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041112

2024:PHHC:041112

7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a

three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding

of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and

maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sen-

tence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each

case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the

offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while de-

termining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbit-

rarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence

should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure

the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.

Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada

Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposi-

tion of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by mak-

ing the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to

the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of

reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by

evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of

the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of

the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances

of reformation of the accused.

8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial

Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on

correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned

counsel for the petitioner/appellant has not assailed the judgment of

conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum

of sentence.

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041112

2024:PHHC:041112

9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 12.10.2008 and the

petitioners have been suffering the agony of trial since the last 16 years.

Since their conviction, the petitioners have grown into a law-abiding citizen

and desires to live a peaceful life. As per their custody certificate, they are

not involved in any other case and has undergone actual sentence of 03

months and 23 days out of total sentence of 03 years in the instant case.

10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the

interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners are reduced to

the period already undergone by them.

11. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-

(i) The judgment dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot affirming the judgment of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 14.08.2015 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one and half year along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them.

(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 6000/- each imposed upon the petitioners by the trial Court is increased to 10,000/- each.

The petitioners are directed to deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case of default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand dis-

posed of.

                                                   (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
21.03.2024                                                 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
                      Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                      Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                          8 of 8