-1- Criminal Revision No.587 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.587 of 2003. Date of Decision: March 8, 2010. Bharat and others ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, and Mr.Rahul Vata, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Bharat, Sanjay, Manohar Lal and Rajnish were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections -2- Criminal Revision No.587 of 2003. 325/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). Under Section 325 of the Code, each of the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fort one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; under Section 324 of the Code, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of Rs.750/- each and under Section 323 of the Code, the sentence imposed upon them was rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner making such default, was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. On appeal preferred by the petitioners, petitioner Manohar Lal was ordered to be released on probation by the lower appellate Court by modifying the sentence order passed by the trial Court while maintaining his conviction for the aforesaid offences and the appeal qua other petitioners was dismissed. Hence this revision petition by petitioners Bharat, Sanjay, Manohar Lal and Rajnish. I have heard Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, and Mr.Rahul Vata, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State of Haryana and have gone through the records of the case. The instant case was registered at the instance of complainant Jagdish Rai. There was a dispute regarding the mosque property between the complainant party and the accused party. The instant case was registered against the accused- -3- Criminal Revision No.587 of 2003. petitioners on 15.9.1996. Civil litigation was pending with regard to the mosque between the parties for the last more than three years from the date of the incident and next date of hearing in the civil suit was 19.11.1996. As per allegations of complainant Jagdish Rai, Manohar Lal (petitioner) and others had beaten the complainant and his sons in order to forcibly occupy mosque property. In this case, complainant Jagdish Rai and his sons Hardip, Dinesh and Ajay had received multiple injuries at the hands of the petitioner. As is evident from the observations made in para No.6 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, counsel for the petitioners before the lower appellate Court had admitted the incident. It was case of the accused that the complainant along with his sons had tried to take forcible possession of the property in question regarding which civil litigation had been decided in favour of the accused. It was further case of the accused before the lower appellate Court that fight had taken place but it was between the complainant party and some labourers engaged by the petitioners-accused, who were working on the plot which was in possession of the petitioners-accused. At the time of occurrence, the accused-petitioners were armed with `Kassis' (spades) and knife. Complainant Jagdish Rai was inflicted a knife blow on his left arm. Rest of the injuries were caused by the accused with the handles of spades. -4- Criminal Revision No.587 of 2003. Dr.Prerna Bhutani (P.W.7) had medico-legally examined the injured in this case. She had observed eight injuries on the person of complainant Jagdish Rai. One injury was opined to have been caused with a sharp edged weapon while rest of the injuries were caused with blunt weapon. On the person of Hardeep son of the complainant, Dr.Prerna Bhutani (P.W.7) had observed six injuries. All the injuries were opined to have been caused by blunt weapon. Dr.Prerna Bhutani (P.W.7) had observed five injuries on the person of Dinesh, another son of the complainant. All the injuries were opined to have been caused with blunt weapon. Dr.Prerna Bhutani (P.W.7), on the medico-legal examination of Ajay, had observed two injuries on his person. Dr.Ravinder Arora (P.W.8) had radiologically examined Hardeep and found that he was having fracture of left ulna. Similarly, Dr. Ravinder Arora, on radiological examination of complainant Jagdish Rai, found fracture of left ulna of Jagdish Rai. However, no fractures were found by Dr.Ravinder Arora (P.W.8) upon radiological examinations of injured Ajay and Dinesh. As noticed above, the incident in this case has been admitted by the accused-petitioners. Once the occurrence has been admitted and it has also been admitted that the dispute was regarding possession over the plot/property in question, the other questions with regard to the shortcomings in the investigation become immaterial. The presence of complainant -5- Criminal Revision No.587 of 2003. Jagdish Rai and his sons at the place of occurrence is admitted. Presence of petitioner Manohar Lal at the time of occurrence is also admitted. As regards the presence of other petitioners-accused, there are the statements of the injured persons and the petitioners have not been able to prove on record that they were not present at the time of occurrence. Significantly, injuries were suffered in the occurrence by the prosecution witnesses, as has been detailed above. None of the petitioners received any injury in the occurrence. It was case of the accused that fight had taken place between the complainant party and some labourers engaged by the petitioners-accused, who were working on the plot which was in possession of the petitioners-accused. None of the alleged labourers was produced in evidence nor any of them was got medico-legally examined. No information had been given to the police by Manohar Lal that the labourers engaged by him had been beaten up by the complainant and his sons. Besides, the labourers had no reason to indulge in fight with the complainant party. Under the circumstances, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that the complainant party was the aggressor. As observed above, as many as eight injuries were found on the person of complainant Jagdish Rai, six on the person of Hardeep, five on the person of Dinesh and two on the person of Ajay. Hardeep and Jagidsh Rai had suffered fractures. On the other hand, none of the accused had suffered any injury. It shows that the complainant party was mercilessly beaten by the accused. Not even a single -6- Criminal Revision No.587 of 2003. injury was found on the person of any of the accused. Without dilating any further on the issue, non-presence of even a single injury on the person of any of the accused shows that the complainant party had not attacked the accused party. The question of right of private defence of body or property did not arise in this case. If the complainant party was the aggressor and had gone with the intention of assaulting the accused party or taking forcible possession of the property in question, then they would have definitely caused injuries on the person of the accused. As noticed above, in all the complainant party had sustained 21 injuries at the hands of the accused, which fact clearly shows that the complainant party was not the aggressor. The attack was, in fact, opened by the accused. As such, the petitioners have rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case, as mentioned above. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 8, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE