Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Kaur Alias Jassi Shoorvir ... vs State Of Punjab on 14 May, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
CRR-2380-2023 -1-
266 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2380-2023
Decided on: 14.05.2024
Jaswinder Kaur @ Jassi Shoorvir @ Rimpi and another .... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)
The petitioners are challenging the judgment dated
25.09.2023 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the
appeal preferred by them against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 29.09.2018 passed by JMIC, Zira vide which petitioners
were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 420
IPC, was partly allowed.
2. The prosecution case as set up may be noticed as thus: on
07.01.2015, SHO, Police Station Makhu received an application regarding
the missing of petitioner No.1 Jaswinder Kaur @ Jassi Shoorvir @ Rimpi
through Daljit Singh, Inderjit Singh and Narinderjit Singh. On 30.06.2015
when the police party was patrolling near Bus Stand Makhu, Investigating
Officer received a secret information that petitioners No.1 and 2, who
were permanent resident of Canada and got insured from the Insurance
Companies of America and Canada for Rs.7,20,00,000/-, came to India in
November 2014. The petitioners along with Inderjit Singh, Narinderjit
Singh, Daljit Singh and others, in order to grab the said insured money,
gave a false report to the police regarding the missing of petitioner No.1.
The dead body recovered by Police Station Sanghriya, Rajasthan was
also falsely identified as dead body of petitioner No.1 - Jaswinder Kaur @
Jassi Shoorvir @ Rimpi by the aforesaid persons. Upon inquiry, the
Investigating Officer found the said information reliable and therefore, a
ruqa was sent to the concerned police station. During investigation, raid
was conducted in the house of accused-petitioner No.1 where she was
found alive, which led to the arrest of the petitioners. In support of its
case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the
complainant Raj Singh.
3. During trial, when the accused were examined under Section
313 Cr.PC, they denied all the allegations and incriminating evidence
appearing against them and claimed that they were innocent and falsely
implicated in the case in hand.
4. Based on the evidence presented and other material on
record, the trial Court convicted the petitioners under Sections 420, 120-B
and 182 IPC vide judgment dated 29.09.2018. The appeal preferred to
impugn the aforesaid judgment was partly allowed by the Appellate Court
vide judgment dated 25.09.2023, leading to the filing of present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, at the outset, fairly
admitted that due to the findings of fact recorded by both trial Court as
well as Appellate Court for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B
IPC, he would not press the present petition on merits. Instead, learned
counsel seeks to limit the prayer to the quantum of sentence only.
Learned counsel has urged that the incident in question relates back to
the year 2015 and the petitioners have faced the prolonged criminal
proceedings for nearly 10 years. Furthermore, petitioners are leading a
disciplined and law-abiding life since then and have not been involved in
any other criminal case.
In the light of above circumstances, a prayer has been made
by learned counsel for a lenient view be taken, advocating for the
reduction in quantum of sentence awarded by the trial Court to the period
already undergone. It is argued that sending the petitioners behind bars
would serve no useful purpose.
6. Learned State counsel has however, opposed the
submissions and prayer made by the counsel opposite in view of the
findings recorded against them by both the Courts below. It has, however,
not been disputed that the petitioners have been maintaining good
conduct, and have not been involved in any other criminal case. Learned
State counsel has also filed the custody certificate of petitioner No.1,
which is taken on record; custody certificate also does not reflect the
involvement of petitioner No.1 in any other criminal case.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material available on record.
8. In view of the fact that the petitioners have not been involved
in any other criminal case and have rather indeed been leading a
disciplined and law-abiding life, this Court does not deem it appropriate to
send them behind bars.
9. Ends of justice would be thus, met if while maintaining the
conviction of the petitioners their substantive sentence of three years is
reduced to the period already undergone by them in the present case.
However, the fine imposed on the petitioners is enhanced from
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.35,000/- each under Section 420 IPC. The enhanced
amount of fine i.e. Rs.25,000/- each totalling Rs.50,000/- shall be
deposited by the petitioners with the Director, PGI Poor Patient Welfare
Fund and the receipt of the same shall be produced before the trial
Court/successor Court. It is made clear that in case of non-deposit of
fine within a period of two months from the date of this order, benefit of
reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioners and they will
be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to
them.
10. With this modification, the present petition stands disposed
of.
14.05.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
