Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulla Masih Etc vs State Ofpb on 6 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062214
CRA-S-1899-SB-2003 -1-
2024:PHHC:062214
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1899-SB-2003 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.05.2024
Kulla Masih and others
... Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parveen Jain, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction dated 04.09.2003 and the order of sentence dated 06.09.2003
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in FIR No.85 dated
13.08.1999 under Sections 307 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC') read with Sections 148 & 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station
Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur, vide which appellants Waris Masih, Satta
Masih and Pappi Masih were convicted under Sections 323 & 307 read with
Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062214
2024:PHHC:062214
a period of 05 years with total fine of Rs.1,000/- each along with default
mechanism and appellant Kulla Masih was convicted under Sections 307 &
323 read with Section 34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 07 years with total fine of Rs.2,000/- along
with default mechanism.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.08.1999, complainant
Darbara Singh and his son Rattan Singh were brought to Police Station
Wadala Bangar in an injured condition and on the same day, their medico-
legal examination was got conducted from Civil Hospital. They were not in a
condition to record their statements and even on the next day i.e. 12.08.1999,
they were declared unfit to record their statements. On 13.08.1999, their
statements were recorded by ASI Kamal Kishore in Civil Hospital and he
reported to the police station that on 11.08.1999 at about 08.30 p.m.,
complainant and his son were present on the crossing of link road of their
village and Kulla Masih, armed with kirpan, Waris Masih armed with Dattar,
Satta Masih armed with dang, Pappy Masih armed with dang and accused
Rani wife of Kulla Masih, empty handed came there. Rani raised a lalkara to
teach a lesson to them not to harvest the paddy crop on account of some
money dispute and she caught hold of Rattan and Kulla Masih gave sword
blow on the back of head of the complainant. Waris Masih gave dattar blow
from the backside, which hit him on his head. Pappy Masih gave dang blow,
which hit on the left elbow of son of the complainant Rattan Singh. Satta
Masih gave dang blow, which hit on the upper part of right arm of the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062214
2024:PHHC:062214
complainant. Thereafter, the complainant raised an alarm "Mar Ditta Mar
Ditta" and on hearing the noise, Kashmir Singh son of Makhan Singh came
to their rescue and the accused party ran away from the spot with respective
weapons. On the basis of aforementioned statement of the complainant, case
was registered against the accused persons under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149
of IPC.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, at the outset, submits
that since appellant Kulla Masih has passed away, present appeal qua him
may be disposed of as abated.
4. Ordered accordingly.
5. Learned senior counsel on behalf of appellants Satta Masih,
Waris Masih and Pappy Masih, contends that he is not assailing the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2003 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence, to that of the
sentence already undergone by the appellants, as they have already
undergone total sentence of 04 years, 08 months and 05 days and are not
involved in any other criminal activity.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer, as the
learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct
appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, appellants Satta
Masih, Waris Masih and Pappy Masih do not deserve any leniency.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062214
2024:PHHC:062214
8. In Deo Narain Mandal Vs. 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
sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each
case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the manner, in which
the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered, while
determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used
arbitrarily 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 Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the
imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose, as it acts as a deterrent
by making 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
conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and
the chances of reformation of the accused.
9. 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062214
2024:PHHC:062214
correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned
senior counsel for the appellants has not assailed the judgment of conviction
on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
10. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 13.08.1999 and
appellants Satta Masih, Waris Masih and Pappy Masih have been suffering
the agony of trial since the last about 25 years. Since their conviction, the
appellants have grown into a law-abiding citizen and desire to live a peaceful
life. As per their custody certificates dated 07.12.2018, they are not involved
in any other case and have undergone actual sentence of 01 year and 05
months, out of total sentence of 04 years, 08 months and 05 days in the
instant case.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to appellants Satta Masih, Waris
Masih and Pappi Masih is reduced to the period already undergone by them,
as appeal qua appellant Kulla Masih stands abated.
12. Consequently, present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 04.09.2003 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur is upheld, however, the order of
sentence dated 06.09.2003 is modified to the extent that the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years along with
default mechanism awarded to appellants Satta Masih, Waris
Masih and Pappi Masih is reduced to the period of sentence
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062214
2024:PHHC:062214
already undergone by them.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.1,000/- each imposed
upon appellants Satta Masih, Waris Masih and Pappi Masih by
learned trial Court is increased to Rs.5,000/- each. They are
directed to deposit the increased amount of fine in learned trial
Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and in case of default of payment of
fine, they shall be liable to be taken into custody and made to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
13. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
06.05.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
