IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2670 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 25, 2009 Ravinderpal Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General,Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Bathinda vide judgment and order dated 28.7.2008 under Sections 324, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short). Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 324 IPC Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 10.10.2008. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the appellate Court, in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “The facts of the case are that on 13.1.2003 at about 9.30/9.45 p.m. Parkash complainant was present on the Dhaba run by him on 100 feet road, Power House Road, Bathinda. His brother Naresh Kumar and Lachman Dass, resident of Darbhanga (Bihar) a rickshaw puller, were also present there. Lachman Dass was Crl. Revision No. 2670 of 2008 -2- taking the meals. In the meanwhile, accused Monu, who is also known as Bhullar (real name Ravinderpal Singh), who is living near Shiv Mandir, accompanied by one Satwant Singh, who is living near Dashmesh School and who used to come to the Dhaba earlier also, came there. Accused Monu alias Ravinderpal Singh demanded a cigarette from the complainant. Complainant replied that he does not have the cigarette. Accused Ravinderpal Singh started abusing the complainant. When the complainant objected to it accused Ravinderpal Singh alias Monu took out a knife from the pocket of his pent and told the complainant that he will be given the taste for picking up trouble with the accused. Saying so, accused gave a blow of knife, which hit near the right eye of complainant. Complainant fell down and while falling, his right knee hit the nearby pole and also received injury. Naresh brother of complainant and Lachman Dass present here, tried to rescue the complainant, on which Ravinderpal Singh alias Monu gave two blows of knife on the head of Lachman Dass and also gave a blow from the reverse side of knife near the left eye of Lachman Dass. All of them raised alarm, on which the accused ran away. Parkash and Lachman Dass were removed to Civil Hospital, Bathinda by Naresh and Cham Cham Devi, sister in law of Parkash. Doctor sent intimation to Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Bathinda on 14.0.1.2003 morning. A police party led by ASI Gurdeep Singh then visited the Hospital and sought the opinion of the Doctor on 14.01.2003 at 8.00 a.m. vide application Ex.PW4/A. The Doctor declared the patient unfit to Crl. Revision No. 2670 of 2008 -3- make statement. Then again ASI Gurdeep Singh visited Civil Hospital, Bathinda on 14.01.2003 at 4.00 p.m. and sought the opinion of the Doctor vide application Ex.PW4/B. The patient was declared fit to make statement by the doctor vide Ex.PW.3/H. Then statement of complainant Ex.PA was recorded at 5.00 p.m. and the same was sent to police station, Kotwali, Bathinda, where formal first Information report Ex.PW.4/D was recorded. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.PW.4/F. During the course of investigation, the accused were arrested on 16.01.2003. A dagger Ex.P.1 was recovered from accused Ravinderpal Singh. Rough sketch Ex.PW4/H of the dagger was prepared. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not a previous convict and was a young man aged about 27 years. He has already undergone about four months of actual sentence. Learned counsel further submits that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Fine imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone. Crl. Revision No. 2670 of 2008 -4- Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 324, 323 IPC as ordered by the Courts below is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. With the above modification, the revision petition stands disposed of. ( Sabina ) Judge February 25, 2009 arya