Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2005 Date of decision: 2.11.2010 Gurdeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Simranjit Kaur, Advocate for Mr.HNS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner Gurdeep Singh along with Surjeet Singh @ Balli, Lakhbir Singh @ Pammi and Malkiyat Singh @ Ganju was convicted for an offence under Sections 279, 323, 325, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), vide judgment dated 27.9.2000 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pehowa. Vide order of the even date accused Surjeet Singh @ Balli was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 279 IPC, whereas, all the remaining accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the commission of offence under Section 323/ 34 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each under Section 325/ 34 IPC and to further undergo simple Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2005 2 imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 452/ 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra. All the accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 452 IPC. Accused Surjeet Singh @ Balli, was convicted for an offence under Sections 279 and 323 IPC; accused Lakhbir Singh @ Pammi and Malkiyat Singh @ Ganju were convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC, whereas, accused Gurdeep Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 325 IPC. Hence, the present revision petition by petitioner Gurdeep Singh. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 3 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 20- 10-1991, complainant Teja Singh met A.S.I. Chander Pal along with the medico-legal report and made statement to the effect that he is a resident of Tiba Farm Pehowa and a candidate for municipal committee from Ward No. 2. At about 7.30 P.M. When he was sitting at his house, Maninder Singh came to meet at their residence on a scooter bearing registration No. HR-41/0447 and when he started going back he (complainant) came to see Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2005 3 him off at the place, where his scooter was parked in the street. In the meanwhile, a truck No. HRE- 6727 whose number he came to know later, being driven rashly and negligently came from the Kurukshetra road, which was being driven by Sh. Surjeet Singh alias Balli and hit the scooter standing towards right side of his door by the side of wall and he and Maninder Singh had a narrow escape and the scooter suffered a considerable damage. On this, he told Surjeet Singh, driver, who is his neighbour that he did not do a correct act. Surjeet Singh while disembarking from the truck exhorted to catch him and he (complainant) ran into his house and Surjeet Singh armed with Lathi accompanied by Lakhbir armed with iron rod and gurdeep Singh alias Pappu and Ganju sons of Sh. Waryam Singh armed with Lathis followed him. Lakhbir gave iron rod blow on his head, mouth, right shoulder and Gurdeep Singh and Ganju caused injuries to his brother Mangal Singh. Surjeet Singh gave lathi blows to his wife Joginer Kaur, and his grand daughter Aman. They raised alarm. His sons Maninder Singh and Rajinder Singh rescued them from the accused otherwise, they would have Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2005 4 beaten them further. Thereafter, accused persons ran away along with their weapons. He further stated that they all were taken to Community Health Centre, Pehowa by Prem Singh and Sukhvinder Singh from where Mangal Singh was referred to Govt. hospital Kurukshetra and they were discharged after first aid and medicines. He further stated that Surjeet Singh by driving truck rashly and negligently endangered their lives and also caused injuries to him and his family members on his protest. On the basis of the said statement, the present case was registered. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared and accused were arrested. On completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the court for trial of the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Fine as imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner has undergone one month and twenty four days of actual sentence and is not involved in any other Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2005 5 case. The petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1991. The petitioner is the only bread earner of the family. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is liable to be reduced to already undergone by him. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE November 02, 2010 anita