Crl. Revision No. 1014 of 2009(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1014 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:May 08, 2009 Mehal Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG,Punjab *** SABINA, J. Mehal Singh-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') vide judgment dated 26.7.2005 by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur along with his co-accused. Vide order of even date passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 324 IPC.. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 9.3.2009. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the learned Appellate Crl. Revision No. 1014 of 2009(O&M) -2- Court in para 2 of its judgment, is as under:- “Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 14.2.1999 on receipt of MLR at police Station regarding the injuries of Sarwn Singh, ASI Jugraj Singh (herein referred to as Investigating Officer) along with other police officials went to Civil Hospital Ferozepur and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of Sarwan Singh (herein after referred to as complainant), he recorded his statement to the fact that he is resident of village Sodheywala and he had kept Beerh of Shri Guru Granth Sahib and he is running his livelihood by the donations given by the residents of the village. On 14.2.1999 at about 10/11 AM, he was sitting in his land, then accused Jagir Singh started tethering his cattle in the land of complainant. When the complainant stopped him from doing so, Jagir Singh replied that the said land belongs to him, on which a quarrel took place between them. Then Jagir Singh went to his house while abusing the complainant. Soon after, Jagir Singh armed with Kirpan, his relative Fauji armed with Kirpan, son of Fauji armed with takua, son of Jagir Singh armed with takua, Bansa empty handed, Kuldeep Singh @ leader empty handed and Surjit Singh Ex-Sarpanch empty handed came there. Kuldeep Singh and Surjit Singh raised lalkara that the complainant should be caught and his legs and arms should be broken. On this Kuldeep Singh gave a takua blow which hit on the forehead of the complainant. He again gave another blow of takua from its blunt side which hit the Crl. Revision No. 1014 of 2009(O&M) -3- complainant on his head. Accused Fauji @ Mehal Singh gave a kirpan blow, on which the complainant raised his left arm to save him and the three blows of kirpan hit the complainant on his left arm. Accused Sarwan Singh gave a takua blow which hit the complainant on his right hand. He again gave two more takua blows on the right arm and on the back side of the right hand of the complainant. Accused Jagir Singh also gave a takua blow on the right hand of the complainant. Accused Jagir Singh gave a kirpan blow which hit the complainant on his nose. The accused also gave injuries to the complainant on his left knee. He raised alarm which attracted Lakha Singh and Jarnail Singh who also raised alarm. On this, all the accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Then the complainant after some time, himself went to hospital where he was given medical treatment. The motive behind the occurrence is that a civil litigation is pending between the complainant and accused Jagir Singh regarding some portion of land and accused Jagir Singh wanted to dispossess the complainant from that land. This statement of complainant was read over to him and after admitting the same as correct, he put his signatures on it. The Investigating Officer found that from the statement of the complainant and from the medical opinion, offence under Section 324/325/323/148/149 IPC was made out against the accused. He made his endorsement in this regard on the statement and sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered against the accused. Crl. Revision No. 1014 of 2009(O&M) -4- Later on, injury No. 4 on the person of complainant was declared as grievous and it was caused by sharp edged weapon, so offence under Section 326 IPC was added. The accused were arrested and were released on bail. The Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared rough site plan and after completion of other formalities, challan against accused Mehal Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Jagir Singh was presented in the court under sections 326.325//324/323/34 IPC.” Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner has already undergone more than two months of actual sentence. Petitioner is 65 years old and has undergone an eye operation. Petitioner is not a previous convict. Learned counsel has submitted that the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Fine is said to have already been deposited by the petitioner. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 IPC is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE May 08, 2009 PARAMJIT