Criminal Revision No.652 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 652 of 2005 Date of Decision: 14.02.2011. Swaran Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Devender Bir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated March 22nd, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated October 20th, 2003 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, whereby, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under: Offence U/S Sentence Fine In default Accused – Swaran Singh, Balvinder Singh & Attar Singh (each) 148 IPC RI for 1 year ` 100/- RI for 7 days 323/149 IPC RI for 6 months - -- 324/149 IPC RI for 1 year ` 100/- RI for 7 days 325/149 IPC RI for 2 years ` 200/- RI for 15 days 326/149 IPC RI for 3 years ` 500/- RI for 1 month 506/149 IPC RI for 1 year ` 100/- RI for 7 days Accused – Dilawar Singh, Satnam Singh and Harminder Singh (each) 148 IPC RI for 1 year - - 323/149 IPC RI for 6 months - -- 324/149 IPC RI for 1 year - -- Criminal Revision No.652 of 2005 2 .. 325/149 IPC RI for 1 year ` 100/- RI for 7 days 326/149 IPC RI for 2 years ` 300/- RI for 1 month 506/149 IPC RI for 1 year ` 100/- RI for 7 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. During pendency of the revision petition, accused- Swaran Singh (petitioner No.1) died. Accordingly, revision filed by him stands abated. 3. Firstly, the facts : On April 25th, 1990, Bhupinder Singh -complainant (PW-3), author of First Information Report (Exhibit PW6/C) purchased land measuring 73 Kanals situated in Village Dera Kalsi, District Karnal from Kuldip Singh. The possession of the land was delivered to him by Kuldip Singh. After purchase of the land, he learnt that Swaran Singh – accused (since deceased) had procured an agreement to sell in respect of some portion out of the land purchased by him, by paying Rs.50,000/- to Kuldip Singh. On account of that, his relations with Swaran Singh became strained. 4. On March 18th, 1992 at about 10.00 AM, Bhupinder Singh (PW-3) along with his brother in law – Baldev Singh (PW-6) was irrigating the field. Swaran Singh along with the petitioners armed with lethal weapon reached there. They caused injuries to Bhupinder Singh and Baldev Singh. They raised alarm. Balwinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh sons of the complainant also reached the spot. Injuries were caused to them also by the accused. Dalbir Singh and Santosh also reached the scene of occurrence. On seeing them, the accused fled away. The injured were evacuated to the Civil Hospital, Nilokheri. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the remaining five petitioners has urged that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. The grounds pleaded are that, (i) Attar Singh is 72 years of age and Dilawar Singh is 74 years old; (ii). the injuries which fell under the mischief of Section 326 IPC were not caused by Criminal Revision No.652 of 2005 3 .. petitioners– Balwinder Singh alias Jatinder Singh, Satnam Singh and Harminder Singh and their role was that they were members of the unlawful assembly; (iii). they have faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of 19 years (iv) . they are not previous convicts and (v). the petitioners have undergone actual sentence of 2 months and 17 days; 6. The numerous grounds taken cumulatively, particularly the age of petitioners – Attar Singh and Dilawar Singh and that the grievous injuries were not attributed to petitioners– Balwinder Singh alias Jatinder Singh, Satnam Singh and Harminder Singh, are mitigating circumstance so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but is inclined to reduce the sentence . It is further of the opinion that ends of justice shall be met if the petitioners are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and orders accordingly. 7. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 14.02.2011 som