Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.193 of 1993 Date of Decision: 26.2.2008. Nirman Singh and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Nirman, Avtar Singh, Gurjit Singh and Gurbinder Singh were named as accused in case FIR No. 76 dated 15.3.1986 registered at Bhikhiwind under Sections 326, 325, 324, 34 IPC. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Nirmal Singh son of Kundan Singh, resident of village Chak Mughal, Police Station Khalra. He stated that Nirman Singh had borrowed Rs.200/- from him. He has stated that on the one pretext or the other his request for return of the money was put up. On 13.3.1986, when injured Nirmal Singh complainant had gone to Bhikhiwind at about 5.30 P.M. near the Power House, accused Avtar Singh, Gurjit Singh and Gurbinder Singh accompanied by Nirman Singh came and they were armed with weapons. It is stated that Nirman Singh raised lalkara that complainant be taught lesson for demanding Rs.200/- back. It is stated that Avtar Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1993 2 Singh gave a dang blow on the right leg of the complainant, whereas Nirman Singh gave three gandasi blows, which hit him on his right hand and Gurbinder Singh gave dang blow, which hit him on his right elbow. Avtar Singh also gave dang blow on the left elbow of the complainant. Gurbinder Singh gave another dang blow, which hit on the neck of the complainant. He raised noise, which attracted Bachan Singh and Mehal Singh, who were present nearby. On seeing them, the accused had decamped from the spot. The following injuries were found when complainant was examined vide Medicolegal Report Ex.PH by Dr. Gurdial Singh, PW.5:- 1. A contusion 3 cm X 2 cm reddish on the back of right forearm on the upper end, 3 cm below the elbow tenderness was present; 2. A contusion 2 cm X 2 cm on the back of right hand, on the back of first matacarpo phalengeal joint. Tenderness was present. 3. An incised wound 1½ cm X 1/3 cm half skin deep oblique on the web in between the right thumb and right index finger; 4. An abrasion 1¼ cm long on the left aspect of tip of nose; 5. A contusion 4 cm X 2 cm oblique on the outer aspect and upper 1/4th of left forearm; 6. An incised wound 6½ cm X 1½ cm Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1993 3 oblique on the back and outer part of left hand. Wound was bleeding. On palpation and probing, the first metacarpal bone was fractured through and through giving deformity to the thumb. The shirt was blood stained; 7. An incised wound 2½ cm X 1 cm X bone deep oblique on the back of left hand on the lateral aspect of second metacarpo phalangeal joint of left hand. The wound was bleeding; 8. A superficial incised wound 1 cm X 1/3 cm on the back of first joint of left index finger; 9. A contusion 4 cm X 2 cm with defused swelling on the front of lower 1/3rd of right leg. Tenderness, deformity and crepition was present. The leg was present. The leg was angulated. Both bones were fractured. He was unable to walk”. Gurjit Singh was declared as Proclaimed Offender. Nirman Singh, Avtar Singh and Gurbinder Singh were tried. Learned trial Court relying upon the testimony of Nirmal Singh, injured PW.2, who was supported by Mehal Singh, PW.3, held Nirman Singh, Gurbinder Singh and Avtar Singh to be guilty for the various offences and sentenced Nirman Singh under Section 326 IPC to ;undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to further Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1993 4 undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas Avtar Singh and Gurbinder Singh were sentenced under Sections 326 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Avtar Singh accused was sentenced under Section 325 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo for six months, whereas Nirman Singh and Gurbinder Singh were sentenced under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Gurbinder Singh was sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, whereas Nirman Singh and Avtar Singh were sentenced under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the petitioners were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, all the three accused have filed an appeal. In appeal Gurbinder Singh was acquitted. However, sentence awarded to Avtar Singh and Nirman Singh was modified and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, ordered as under:- “19. Now, as regards the sentence awarded by the trial Court in the case, both the offences u/s 326/325/34 IPC are punishable with imprisonment and fine. However, Avtar Singh appellant was not awarded any sentence or fine u/s 325/34 IPC IPC while Nirman Singh appellant was not awarded any Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1993 5 sentence or fine u/s 325/34 IPC and the sentences awarded to both of them need slight modification. Thus, while partly allowing the appeal, Gurbinder Singh appellant is hereby acquitted in the case. However, while maintaining the conviction of Nirman Singh and Avtar Singh appellants u/ss 326/325/34 IPC and acting within the parameters of the sentences already awarded, both of them are sentenced to R.I. for a period of nine months and a fine of Rs.500/- each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two months under Section 326/34 IPC. Similarly, both of them are also sentenced to R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two months u/s 325/34 ICP. It is, however, ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently”. Mr. Hundal appearing on behalf of the petitioners has been unable to assail the testimony of Nirmal Singh PW.2 and Mehal Singh PW.3. Both the Courts have appreciated the evidence and held that their evidence suffers from no blemish. It has been further held by both the Courts below that medicolegal evidence corroborates ocular version. The argument regarding delay has not been accepted on the ground that complainant's anxiety was to get medical aid for Nirmal Singh. Faced with the findings returned by two Courts below, Mr. Hundal has stated that in the present case, occurrence has taken place Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1993 6 on 13.3.1986. The petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for about 22 years and as per head note of judgment of the learned trial Court, ages of Nirman Singh was recorded as 35 years and Avtar Singh as 40 years, respectively. Thus, according to Mr. Hundal, Avtar Singh is more than 62 years of age and Nirman Singh is aged about 57 years. It has been further stated that in the last 22 years, the petitioners have committed no other offence and they have been living their life peacefully. There is complete peace in the village and sending them behind bars may not disturb amity, harmony and cordial relations, which are prevailing in the village. It has been further stated that the petitioner were taken into custody on 25.2.1993 and were granted bail by this Court on 29.3.1993 and a few days thereafter they were released on bail. Thus, the petitioners have undergone more than one months of their actual sentence. Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, ends of justice will be met in case their sentence is reduced to already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each, which shall be deposited by the petitioners in the Court within three months. Non-deposit of fine shall be construed as dismissal of the present revision petition. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 26, 2008 “DK”