Crl. Revision Nos.1822 and 1828 of 2001. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1822 of 2001. DECIDED ON : 25.2.2009. Bhagwan Dass Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. Respondent. Crl. Revision No.1828 of 2001. DECIDED ON : 25.2.2009 Mal Singh and others Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab. Respondent. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. JORA SINGH,J. Through this single judgment, I propose to dispose of Criminal Revision Nos.1822 and 1828 of 2001 to impugn the judgment dated 5.12.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which appeal Crl. Revision Nos.1822 and 1828 of 2001. 2 against the judgment dated 6.3.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ferozepur, was dismissed with modification that Mal Singh appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code instead of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code but was affirmed with respect to remaining appeal in all respects. Mal Singh was also convicted and sentenced as under:- “ Mal Singh appellant required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days qua commission of offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, but qua commission of offence under Section 324/34 I.P.C. Mal Singh was required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Sentence of Mal Singh qua commission of offences under Sections 427 and 440 of Indian Penal Code, however, affirmed like that of sentence of remaining appellants” Crl. Revision Nos.1822 and 1828 of 2001. 3 Prosecution story, in brief, is that on receipt of M.L.R of Sumitra Bai and Darian Bai, police party headed by Assistant Sub Inspector Jagir Singh, had gone to police station, Jallalabad. After obtaining opinion of the Doctor regarding fitness of the injured, statement of Sumitra Bai was recorded. Sumitra Bai reported that she is in possession of four killas of land owned by Gurlal Singh. Cotton crop was sown in that land. On 18.6.1996 at 3 P.M., she along with her husband Baj Singh and Darian Bai had gone to fields. Land of the complainant party adjoins the land in their possession. Entries of the khasra girdawari qua the land owned by Gurlal Singh were in the name of the complainant party. Harinderpal Singh is attorney of Gurlal Singh. Land of Mangal Singh was being cultivated by accused persons. At about 3.30 P.M. accused party was seen while plaughing land in which they had already sown cotton crop. Accused were requested not to damage cotton crop, then Harjinder Singh exhorted co-accused to catch hold of the complainant party. Bhagwan Dass armed with gandasa gave blow on the head of the complainant. Second blow with gandasa from its reverse side hit her on left wrist. On receipt of injuries, complainant fell Crl. Revision Nos.1822 and 1828 of 2001. 4 down on the ground. Mal Singh gave gandasa blow from its reverse side, which hit on the back side of her shoulder. Makhan Singh gave three-four blows. Raula was raised, then accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Injured was shifted to hospital. After recording the statement of injured, statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal First Information was recorded. Motive to cause injuries was that Harjinder Singh, being attorney of Gurlal Singh was intending to take forcible possession of the land of the complainant party. After completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. Accused were charged under Sections 440/427/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and closed its evidence. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations levelled against them to which Crl. Revision Nos.1822 and 1828 of 2001. 5 they denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Vide judgment/order dated 6.3.2000 accused were convicted and sentenced. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment/ order dated 6.3.2000, appeals were preferred by the accused, but the same were rejected vide judgment dated 5.12.2001. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and have gone through the evidence on the file very carefully and thoroughly. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that he does not challenge judgment of the First Appellate Court on the point of conviction. One of the revisionists namely, Mal Singh has died during the pendency of revision. Occurrence is dated 18.6.1996. Injuries were found to be simple in nature. Revisionists are the first offenders. They remained in custody for about two months. Lenient view be taken and they be released on probation. Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State argued that no doubt occurrence is dated 18.6.1996. Revisionists are the first offender. If Crl. Revision Nos.1822 and 1828 of 2001. 6 lenient view is to be taken, then revisionists be directed to pay compensation payable to the injured. As per submission of the learned defence counsel for the revisionists, impugned judgment is upheld on the point of conviction. One of the revisionists, namely Mal Singh as per defence counsel for the revisionists has died during the pendency of the revision. Occurrence is dated 18.6.1996. Injuries on the person of injured were found to be simple in nature. Revisionists are the first offenders and belong to a poor family. They are to become hard criminals if sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court. Ends of justice would be fully met if revisionists are directed to undergo imprisonment, as already undergone subject to deposit of Rs.5000/-each as compensation payable to the injured. Revisionists are to deposit Rs.5000/- each as compensation with the trial Court within two months from today, payment deposited is to be paid to the injured, namely Sumitra Bai. With this modification, Criminal Revisions No. 1822 and 1828 of 2000, are dismissed. 25.2.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) Anoop JUDGE Crl. Revision Nos.1822 and 1828 of 2001. 7