BIJENDER @ PAPU AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2016-6-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on June 03,2016

Bijender @ Papu And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This criminal appeal arises from a special leave petition in which notice was issued solely on the question of sentence. From that point of view, it is necessary to keep in mind only the relevant broad features of the prosecution case that were accepted by the trial court leading to conviction of the two appellants as well as three others under Section 325 read with Section 149 and under Sections 148A, 308/149 and 323/149 of the IPC. The Trial Court imposed punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three years alongwith a fine of Rs.12,000/- each for the offence under Section 308/149 and lesser sentences including fines for the remaining offences. Rs.70,000/- out of the fine amount was ordered to be paid to the injured Budhram by way of compensation. The High Court heard the appeal of all the five convicts against their conviction and sentence together with a criminal revision filed on behalf of the injured Budhram for converting the conviction of all for the offence under Section 307 IPC and for enhanced punishment. The High Court considered the materials in detail and held the appellants as well as other three co-accused guilty of offence punishable only under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. While maintaining the conviction and sentence for the other minor offences, the High Court, for the aforesaid major offence enhanced the sentence to RI for five years and fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default the concerned convict has to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.
(2.) On behalf of the appellants it has been highlighted that the other three co-accused who were convicted for similar offences were ordered by the High Court to be released on probation of good conduct for the term of imprisonment. Although such relief was granted to those three co-accused mainly on consideration of their old age varying between 85 to 75 years, the appellants claim parity on account of similar role assigned to all the five convicts.
(3.) It was also highlighted that the occurrence is of 1997 and the ordeal of long trial has been faced by the appellants for about 19 years.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.