IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1734 of 2008 Date of decision: 5 th March, 2010 Ishwar and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Ishwar, Parkash and Ramphal, sons of Mange Ram. They were named as accused in case FIR No. 29 dated 06.02.1999 registered at Police Station Uchana under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC. The trial Court vide impugned judgment and order of sentence held all the petitioners guilty of offence under Section 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. They were also sentenced under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Revision No. 1734 of 2008 Aggrieved against the decision of the trial Court, the petitioners have filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed, order of conviction was upheld and sentence was maintained. In the present case, the complainant Kapoora PW-2 suffered following injuries: 1. A lacerated wound was present on the left lateral side of scalp. Clotted blood was present. Size was 2” x 0.2cm into bone deep. X-ray skull was advised. 2. Swelling was present on right fore-arm upper part. Movements were restricted and painful. X-ray right fore-arm was advised. 3. Pain was present on right leg lower end laterally without any mark. 4. Swelling was present on left shoulder with small abrasion. X-ray left shoulder was advised. Hoshiar Singh PW-6 suffered following three injuries: 1. Lacerated wound was present on top of scalp obliquely. Clotted blood was present. Size 2” and 2 cm into bone deep. X-ray skull was advised (KUO). 2. Swelling was present on right temporal region without any mark. Size 1 x 1 cm. X-ray skull was advised. 3. Swelling was present on left temporal region without any mark. Size 1 x 1 cm. X-ray skull was advised. Chandi Ram PW-5 suffered five injuries. They are reproduced as under: 1. Lacerated wound was present on top of scalp. Clotted blood was present. Size 1.5” x 0.2 x bone deep. X-ray skull was advised (KUO). 2 Criminal Revision No. 1734 of 2008 2. Lacerated wound was present on left lateral side of scalp. Clotted blood was present. Size was 1” x 9.2 x bone deep. X-ray skull was advised. 3. An abrasion was present on right forearm medically. Size 3 x 1 cm. 4. Small lacerated wound was present on left forearm laterally just about wrist. 0.5cm x 0.1cm x 0.2cm. Advised X-ray. 5. Small contusion was present on back of chest upper part 6” x 1”. Dr.G.D. Gupta PW-4 had radio-logically examined all the three injured. This witness found fracture on both bones of right forearm on the person of complainant Kapoora son of Boota Ram as per report Ex.PW4/A. He also found fracture on left ulna on the person of Chandi son of Boota Ram as per report Ex.PW4/G. The doctor further found fracture of right parietal bone on the person of Hoshiar Singh son of Ramdiya as per report Ex.PW4/L. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA made by Kapoora PW-2. The factual matrix, as to how the injuries were caused, has been narrated by the trial Court in its judgment. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder: “2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 1.2.1999 complainant Kapoora son of Buta Ram recorded his statement before ASI Darshan Singh with the allegations that he belongs to village Chhattar and is an agriculturist by profession. They were three brothers, out of them Ramdiya has been died. They have joint land with Ishwar, Parkash @ Popar and Ramphal, residents of Chhattar under one khewat and there arose dispute over khal of canal water about 5-6 3 Criminal Revision No. 1734 of 2008 months ago and then matter was amicably settled. They have left thorough fare/way for the purpose to go towards their field. On 1.2.1999 at 1.00 PM they were present in the field, at that time, Ishwar, Parkash @ Popar started taking away cattle from their common through fare/way on which they refused to do so, then they both started abusing, to which they replied in same manner. In the meantime Ramphal armed with lathi came at the spot and Ishwar, Parkash were also having lathi in their hands. After hearing noise, Chandi and Hoshiar Singh won of Ramdiya (nephew) also came there. Ishwar, Parkash, Ramphal armed with lathis assaulted on them and subsequently Ishwar gave lathi blow on his head, Parkash @ Popar gave lathi blow on his right arm, Ramphal gave two lathi blows on his right leg and left shoulder. Ishwar and Parkash gave blows of lathi on the head and both ears on the person of Hoshiar, as a result of that, Hoshiar fell down there. Further, Ishwar, Parkash and Ramphal also gave lathi blows on the person of Chandi. Rishi son of Ramdiya shouted or gave lalkara while seeing them beatings, on which all three accused along with their offensive weapons fled away from the spot, otherwise they beat more. Thereafter, Rishi arranged a vehicle and got admitted them in a Hospital.” Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of PW-2 Kapoora, PW-5 Chandi Ram and PW-6 Hoshiar Singh. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are many discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of these witnesses. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, will not tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. The findings of both the courts below that these witnesses are trustworthy and reliable, is sufficient to uphold the conviction of the petitioners. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that occurrence in the present case had taken place on 1st February, 1999 4 Criminal Revision No. 1734 of 2008 and ten years have already elapsed. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners have suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial be considered and the sentence awarded upon the petitioners be reduced to already undergone. It is stated that the petitioners have already undergone one month and seven days of actual sentence out of the sentence awarded to them. In the present case, both the bones of right forearm of the complainant Kapoora PW-2 were fractured, left ulna of Chandi Ram was also fractured and there was a fracture of the skull on the person of Hoshiar Singh. The sentence must be adequate. The task of the Court is to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, to arrive at a just sentence. The nature of injuries and fractures suffered by the injured prevent this Court to come to the rescue of the petitioners. However, taking into consideration that petitioners have suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioners is reduced from nine months to eight months rigorous imprisonment. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 5, 2010 rps 5