CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2010 › Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab

Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab

Supreme Court of India · 2 August 2010

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
2 August 2010
Case no.
Crl.A. No. 1488 of 2010
Bench
Harjit Singh Bedi, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Length
4 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 5931 of 2010 CORRECTED COPY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1488 OF 2010
ARISING OUT SLP(CRL.) NO. 5931 OF 2010

SANTOKH SINGH & ORS.
.....
APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
.....
RESPONDENT

ORDER

1.
Leave granted.

2. This is a rather unusual case and in view of the long drawn litigation pending over almost two decades, the matter can be sorted out here and now. In view of the limited question involved, we are not inclined to even issue notice but proceed to decide the matter at this very stage. The five appellants Santokh Singh, Joginder Singh, Kala and 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 U/S. R.I. Fine In default

Santokh Singh
326 IPC

324 IPC 148 IPC

3 years

1 year

1 year

Rs. 1000/- Rs. 500
3 months 2 months

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 5931 of 2010 CORRECTED COPY

Joginder Singh
326/149 IPC

324 IPC

2 years

15 months

Rs. 1000/- Rs. 500/-
3 months 2 months

Kashmira Singh
326/149IPC

324/149 IPC

2 years

1 year

Rs. 1000/- Rs. 500/-
3 months 2 months

Lakhwinder Singh
326/149 IPC

324/149 IPC

2 years

1 year

Rs. 1000/- Rs 500/-
3 months 2 months

Kala
326/149 IPC

324/149 IPC

2 years

1 year

Rs. 1000/-

. 500/-
₨

3 months 2 months

3. This conviction and sentence was maintained by the Sessions Judge. Kashmira Singh has in the

meanwhile passed away. 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 as under:

“Perusal of the record reveals that all the accused-petitioners were very much present armed with deadly weapons at the time of occurrence and they have 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 while petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were the age group of 31 years and 28 years respectively at the time of commission of offence and occurrence pertains tot he year 1993 and sword of damocles has remained hanging over the head of petitioners for the last 17 years, I am of the considered opinion that 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. Sentence of fine and default clause will remain same. I order accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this revision petition is disposed of.”

4. Before us, today the learned counsel for the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 5931 of 2010 CORRECTED COPY

appellant has made only one submission. He has 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 Ssection 149. We see merit in the argument. We, accordingly, allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of Joginder Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Kala will stand reduced from two years to one year's R.I. under Section 326/149 of the IPC, the other parts of the sentence being maintained as it is.

5. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.

......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

......................J
[C.K. PRASAD]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. of 2010 @ SLP(Crl.) 5931 of 2010 CORRECTED COPY

NEW DELHI AUGUST 02, 2010.

Ask CaseMinister about Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp