H.S.BHALLA,J - (1.) BY this common judgment, I shall be disposing of two appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 187-SB of 1994 filed by the present appellants and Criminal Appeal No. 228-SB of 1994 filed by Surinder Singh together as they arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 7.3.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.1994 whereby he convicted appellants, namely, Parminder Singh and Gurpal Singh under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and they were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, appellant Surinder Singh (in Criminal Appeal No. 228- SB of 1994) was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Learned counsel at the very out-set has contended that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellants on merits and confines his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that a case under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants in the year 1988. The present appellants were convicted by the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 28.4.1994. Thereafter, they filed an appeal before this Court in the year 1994 and now a considerable period of 19 years has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that during this period, the appellants have been facing mental agony of the protracted trial and a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over their heads since then. Learned counsel prays that a lenient view be taken against the appellants since they are labourers by profession and they have already suffered imprisonment for 8 months 12 days and 9 months 27 days respectively during the trial of the case and after conviction. Learned counsel has further submitted that keeping in view the facts and mitigating circumstances of the appellants, as also the fact that they are poor labourers, some leniency by way of mercy be shown in the matter of sentence against the appellants.
(3.) SINCE the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has been restricted only on the quantum of sentence, therefore, in order to avoid repetition of facts in the judgment herein, I do not consider it necessary to recapitulate the same again, since they have been narrated in the judgment of the trial Court in details.;