Ajmer Singh v. State Of Punjab

1. Special leave granted.

2. We have heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent State of Punjab.

3. We had issued notice to the appellant to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced.

4. In the occurrence that took place at about 2.00 a.m. on the night intervening 19-3-1993 and 20-3-1993, the appellant along with one other policeman in police uniform with firearms entered the house of the complainant with a view to commit the offence of robbery.

5. The appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under S.458 and 393 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under both the counts, apart from the fine of Rs 1000 imposed by the trial court. When the matter came up in appeal, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. It noticed that it was proved that the appellant and his companion had made an attempt to commit robbery and in that process committed the offence of house trespass as well. In view of the fact that the police party promptly arrived at the spot, they could not commit any other offence. The High Court did not find this to be a case where the order of conviction deserved interference. However, the High Court, having regard to the fact that the appellant did not commit any further offence, and that the occurrence took place on 20-3-1993 and the appellant had been on bail for the last more than 6 years, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. While doing so, the High Court did not even notice the period already undergone by the appellant.

6. In a case where a police personnel attempts to commit robbery and with that in view commits house trespass in the dead of night armed with firearms, it would be really unfortunate if the court overlooks the serious nature of the crime and adopts a lenient attitude. Indeed, if a police officer is convicted for having committed such offences, the court will be justified in imposing a deterrent sentence, so that it may serve as a warning to others and may restore to some extent the diminishing faith of the public in the police force.

7. We find no good reason for the High Court to have interfered with the sentence passed against the appellant. The mere fact that a person is on bail for some time does not mitigate the offence, and having regard to the fact that the appellant was himself a policeman entrusted with the duty of protecting the life and property of citizens, his conduct was unpardonable. In any event, he deserved no sympathy or mercy whatsoever.

8. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court reducing the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone and restore the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur while convicting the appellant by judgment and order dated 23-2-1996.

9. The appellant will surrender to his sentence within two weeks, failing which the State will take necessary steps to apprehend the appellant and take him into custody. The compliance report should be submitted to this Court within eight weeks.

10. We have noticed in several judgments of the High Courts which have come up for consideration before us that while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, no notice is taken of the actual sentence undergone by the accused. There is nothing on record to indicate the period of sentence already undergone by the accused. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to observe that whenever a court reduces the sentence of an accused to the period already undergone, it should categorically notice and state the period actually undergone by the accused.

11. We are also surprised that in a case of this nature, the State of Punjab did not prefer an appeal to this Court, whereas in many other cases of much lesser consequence, it comes up in appeal to this Court. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab for necessary action.

12. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.