Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.04.2010 Ashok Kumar and another ..............Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab ................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. R.S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab HARBANS LAL,J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 5.2.2005 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar accused against the judgment/order of sentence dated 11.3.2004 rendered by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar vide which he convicted and sentenced these accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 342 of IPC and further sentenced the accused Vijay Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of IPC and also sentenced the accused Ashok Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. The facts in brief are that Rajiv Kumar Soni made statement Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2005 (O&M) 2 before the police stating that Ashok Kumar accused was his employee and was in possession of certain documents belonging to him. In order to get back the same, Rajiv Kumar Soni went to his house on 11.5.2000, where he reached at 10.30 a.m. Ashok Kumar was present at his house. Rajiv Kumar Soni demanded the documents. Ashok Kumar started misbehaving with him. He raised lalkara to teach him a lesson and called his brother Vijay Kumar accused. Ashok Kumar caught hold of him. Vijay Kumar gave knife blows to him. Rajiv Kumar Soni tried to get released from his clutches, but could not. On being raised alarm, he was confined in a room. Sanjiv Kumar and Narain Kumar also came at the spot. They took Rajiv Soni to hospital. He was medico legally examined. On this statement the case was registered. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar were charged under Sections 342/324 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. After examining six witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they went up in appeal which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2005 (O&M) 3 recorded by the courts below, they have preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the said Courts. Consequently, the conviction is maintained. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per death certificate mark A purportedly issued by Local Registrar, Births and Deaths, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar (Punjab), the petitioner Vijay Kumar has expired on 13.1.2009 and thus, this petition abates qua him. He further puts that sentence of petitioner Ashok Kumar may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. In view of mark A, this petition abates against Vijay Kumar petitioner. As regards Ashok Kumar he has been facing the agony of trial since 2000. Statedly, Ashok Kumar has undergone 15 days of the actual sentence. This petitioner while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of Ashok Kumar petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (15 days), while maintaining the fine as well its default clause. With this modification in the Criminal Revision No. 315 of 2005 (O&M) 4 order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. Since the petition has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE April 26, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No