Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 185
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Jitender
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 1997,
Decided On : JANUARY 8, 2010
The court considered mitigating circumstances and the passage of time in reducing the sentence for one appellant.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeals - Sentencing - Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC - The court discussed the sentencing under these sections, the evidence presented, and the mitigating circumstances. The court reduced the sentence for one appellant based on mitigating circumstances and the passage of time.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the sentencing of the accused under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC for their involvement in the elopement of a minor girl.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that one appellant's sentence was reduced based on mitigating circumstances and the passage of time, while the state's appeal for enhancement was not interfered with.
Issues: The issues involved the sentencing of the accused and the state's appeal for enhancement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to reduce the sentence for one appellant based on mitigating circumstances and the passage of time, and opted not to interfere with the state's appeal for enhancement.
Final Decision: The court disposed of all three criminal appeals, reducing the sentence for one appellant and not interfering with the state's appeal for enhancement.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. By this common order, three Criminal Appeals bearing Nos.602-SB of 1997 preferred by Jitender son of Sureshdev Sharma, 665- SB of 1997 preferred by Shiva Kant son of Ramdarsh Pandey and 788- SB of 1997 preferred by State of haryana for enhancement of sentence, shall be decided together.
2. Shiva Kant and Jitender, were named as accused in case FIR No.345 dated 3.8.1995 registered at Police Station City Panipat, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 and 120-B IPC. They were tried by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Panipat. Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that jitender, accused, is liable for the offence under Sections 366 and 506 IPC and shiva Kant, accused, guilty under Sections 366, 376 and 506 IPC. No conviction of Jitender was recorded for the offence under Sec.376 IPC. After recording of the conviction, trial Judge sentenced Shiva Kant under Sec.376 ipc to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. He was further sentenced under Sec.366 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sec.506 IPC.
3. Accused Jitender was sentenced under Sec.366 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced under Sec.506 ipc to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. In the present case, Geetu alias Geeta Rani, daughter of Deepak Raj, left her house on 1.8.1995 at 4.00 P. M. Deepak Raj, on 2.8.1995 sworn an affidavit Ex. PH and submitted the same in the Police Station City, Panipat. In the affidavit, he stated that his daughter Geeta Rani is minor. On 1.8.1995 at 4.00 P. M. she told the family members that she was going to the house of her friend to fetch a book and thereafter she did not return. In the affidavit, he further averred that he has no suspicion against anybody and as and when any information is received and he has any doubt regarding anybody, the information would be given to the police. On the basis of affidavit, Daily Diary Report was recorded at the Police Station. Subsequently, Daily Diary Report was converted into FIR on 3.8.1995.
5. Nobody has caused appearance in Criminal Appeal No.665- SB of 1997 preferred by Shiva Kant.
6. This Court thought of appointing Amicus Curiae to defend Shiva Kant, appellant, but an information has been received from the Superintendent, central Jail, Ambala, that Shiva Kant son of Ram Darsh, who was admitted in the central Jail, Ambala, on transfer from District Jail, Karnal, on 31.7.2007 was released on 12.3.2005 on expiry of his sentence. It explains as to why nobody is coming forward to defend the appeal preferred by Shiva Kant as it seems that he has accepted his conviction and sentence.
7. Mr. S. S. Narula, Advocate, appearing for appellant Jitender has stated that as per the affidavit submitted by the father of prosecutrix, his daughter had left the house at her own violation on the pretext of going to the house of a friend for getting a book. Therefore, he sates that the story later coined by the prosecution that jitender had facilitated elopement of Geeta Rani with accused Shiva Kant cannot be sustained. As per the story of prosecution, Jitender is used to be a tenant in the house of Deepak Raj, complainant, and had taken Geeta Rani to his house where Shiva Kant raped her and took her to Shamli and then from Shamli, Shiva kant along with prosecutrix came at Railway Station, Panipat. Geeta Rani and shiva Kant were apprehended, while they were sitting in waiting hall of the railway Station, Panipat. Mr. S.
