IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1617 of 2009 Date of decision : August 13, 2009 Tek Chand and another ....Petitioners versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Tek Chand and Neki Ram, who are brothers, have filed this revision petition assailing their conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar vide judgment dated 24.8.2007 and order dated 27.8.2007 convicted the petitioners under sections 323, 324, 326 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced them as under:- 323/34 IPC R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs 500/-. In default, SI for 15 days each. 324/34 IPC R.I. for one year and fine of Rs 500/-. In default, SI for 15 days each. 326/34 IPC R.I. for three years and fine of Rs 1000/-. In default, SI for one month each. All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Criminal Revision No. 1617 of 2009 -2- In appeal preferred by the petitioners, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 2.5.2009 set aside the conviction and sentence under section 324/34 IPC but maintained their conviction and sentence for the remaining two offences. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition in which notice of motion has been issued only regarding quantum of sentence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the occurrence took place on 25.10.1997 i.e. almost 12 years ago and the petitioners have faced the agony of trial for 12 years. It is also contended that grievous hurt with sharp weapon falling within the ambit of section 326 IPC is attributed to Neki Ram petitioner no. 2 whereas only simple hurt with blunt weapon falling within the purview of section 323 IPC is attributed to petitioner no. 1. Prayer is accordingly made for reduction in sentence. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that both the petitioners with common intention caused injuries to their own nephew and injury no. 1 falling within the ambit of section 326 IPC is of very serious nature and therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any reduction in sentence. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Injury no. 1 suffered by injured Mahender falling within the ambit of section 326 IPC is reproduced herein :- “ There was sharp edge wound in mid line of scalp front to parietal area of size 9 cm x 2 cm x bone deep underlying bone was cut. Fresh bleeding was present.” Criminal Revision No. 1617 of 2009 -3- It would show that the injury was inflicted with force on vital part i.e. scalp front to parietal area and it was bone deep and the underlying bone was cut. The injury was inflicted with gandasa. However, the petitioners have faced the agony of trial for 12 years. Petitioner no. 1 caused only simple injury with blunt weapon falling within the ambit of section 323 IPC. He is only vicariously liable for injury falling under section 326 IPC, with the aid of section 34 IPC. Keeping in view all the circumstances, sentence of imprisonment of petitioner no. 1 Tek Chand for offence under section 326 IPC read with section 34 IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three years to rigorous imprisonment for one year while maintaining the sentence of fine for the said offence as well as while maintaining the sentence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC. Sentence of imprisonment of petitioner No. 2 Neki Ram for offence under section 326 read with section 34 IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for three years to rigorous imprisonment for two years while maintaining the sentence of fine for the said offence as well as while maintaining the sentence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC. With reduction in sentence as aforesaid, the instant revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 13, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'