Crl.R. No.1203 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: Crl.R. No.1203 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION: May 6, 2009 RAM KISHAN ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. PRESENT: NONE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. A.S. GREWAL, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the judgement passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya vide which the petitioner was convicted under Section 323 and 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months under Section 323 IPC and to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 325 IPC. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 2.4.1999, at about 3.30 p.m. the complainant Gurdas Ram had gone to the jungle for grazing his cattle when he was confronted by Ram Kisihan accused who was armed with a danda who asked him why he was not giving his share from the 3/4th kanals of land which was purchased from the custodian in the year 1974-75. To this query the complainant replied that it was he who had purchased the land from his own funds from the custodian and the accused has no claim over the land and hence he is not entitled to the same. On this reply Ram Kishan attacked the complainant with a danda and gave him 10/12 blows on different parts of his body. On an alarm being raised the accused ran away. Crl.R. No.1203 of 2004 -2- The incident was witnesses by PW3 Paras Ram who rescued the complainant from the accused. On receiving the injuries the complainant was taken to the hospital where his statement Ex.PC was recorded by Phoola Singh, ASI regarding the occurrence. In pursuance to the statement made by the complainant, FIR was registered under Section 323 an 325 IPC. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined the complainant Gurdas Ram as PW2, eye witness Paras Ram as PW3 and Dr.R.K. Gautam, PW1 and Dr. Gopal Beri as PW4. Other official witnesses were also examined. In Court the complainant narrated the incident as recorded in the FIR which was duly supported by the eye witness Paras Ram. The injuries suffered by the complainant were duly corroborated by the medical evidence in which 10 injuries were found on the person of the injured. On the basis of entire evidence the trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 323 and 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 325 IPC. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshairpur vide judgement dated 11.3.2004, and the conviction and sentence as awarded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya was upheld. I have considered the judgements of both the Courts carefully. On its perusal I find that the complainant Gurdas Ram has given a truthful account of the manner in which the incident took place. His testimony has not been shaken in any manner by the defence. The injuries suffered by the complainant are duly corroborated by the medical evidence as is clear from the statement by PW4 Dr. Gopal Beri who examined the injured. The only point raised on behalf of the accused is that there is a delay in lodging of the Crl.R. No.1203 of 2004 -3- FIR inasmuch as the incident took place at about 3.30 p.m. on 2.4.1999, whereas statement of the injured was recorded on 2/3.4.1999 at about 1.00 a.m. A perusal of the evidence shows that the injured was given about 10 blows with a danda by the accused, as a result,of which, he was to be removed to hospital. Phoola Singh, ASI went to the hospital and made a request on the basis of which the Doctor declared the injured to be in a fit condition to make statement. Accordingly, the statement was recorded on the intervening night of 2/3.4.1999 at about 1.00 a.m. Thus, delay in the present case is not substantial and moreover the injuries suffered by the complainant are corroborated by the medical examination. Apart from the above, the occurrence was also witnessed by Paras Ram PW3 who was given same account of the incident as has been given by the complainant. In view of the above, I upheld the findings of both the Courts below and accordingly convict the petitioner under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. However, as far as the question of sentencing the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the case file shows that the petitioner had filed this revision petition on 25.5.2004 and he was enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.7.2004, which means that the petitioner had undergone at least 2 months of imprisonment. Apart from the above keeping in view the fact that the incident is more than 10 years old, therefore, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. Revision disposed of. May 6, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE