Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, Justice C.K. Prasad
Date of Judgment: 2 August 2010
Facts of the Case: This case is regarded as unusual due to long drawn litigation which was pending over almost two decades. The five appellants Santokh Singh, Joginder Singh, Kala, Lakhwinder Singh and Kashmira Singh were tried for offences punishable under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted and sentenced them as under:
| Name | Section | R. I. | Fine | In Default |
| Santokh Singh | 326 IPC | 3 years | Rs. 1000/- | 3 months |
| 324 IPC | 1 year | Rs. 500/- | 2 months | |
| 149 IPC | 1 year | – | – | |
| Joginder Singh | 326/149 IPC |
2 years | Rs. 1000/- | 3 months |
| 324 IPC | 15 months | Rs. 500/- | 2 months | |
| Kashmira Singh | 326/149IPC |
2 years | Rs. 1000/- | 3 months |
| 324/149 IPC | 1 year | Rs. 500/- | 2 months | |
| Lakhwinder Singh | 326/149 IPC | 2 years | Rs. 1000/- | 3 months |
| 324/149 IPC | 1 year | Rs 500/- | 2 months | |
| Kala | 326/149 IPC | 2 years | Rs. 1000/- | 3 months |
| 324/149 IPC | 1 year | 500/- | 2 months |
This conviction and sentence was maintained by the Sessions Judge. Kashmira Singh had passed away meanwhile. Before the High Court, the only prayer made was for reduction in the quantum of sentence. The High Court by its judgment dated 26th February, 2010 accordingly observed that the perusal of the record revealed that all the accused-petitioners were armed with deadly weapons at the time of occurrence and they had fully participated in the occurrence and as such provision of Section 149 IPC were fully attracted in this case. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were aged 51 and 66 years respectively and while petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were of the age group of 31 years and 28 years respectively at the time of commission of offence and occurrence pertained in year 1993 and sword of Damocles had remained hanging over the head of petitioners for the last 17 years, the High Court observed that the ends of justice will be adequately met, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced from 3 years R.I. To 2 years R.I. while sentence of fine and default clause remains same. An appeal was made to the Apex Court.
Judgment: The learned counsel for the appellant made only one submission. He pointed out that the sentence awarded to the appellants had been reduced from three years rigorous imprisonment to two years but it appeared that the High Court had, by an inadvertent error confined the relief only to Santokh Singh and not to the other three appellants whose sentence was already two years rigorous imprisonment. The trial court and the Sessions Court had drawn a distinction in the award of sentence as Santokh Singh had been convicted under section 326 IPC simplictor and the other accused with the aid of section 149. The Supreme Court found merit in this argument.
Decision: The Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentence of Joginder Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Kala would stand reduced from two years to one year’s R.I. under Section 326/149 of the IPC. The other parts of the sentence were maintained as it is.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi