IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1993 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.12.2011 Ram Avtar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA -.- Present: Mr. D.S. Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present criminal revision petition has been filed to assail the conviction and order of sentence of the petitioner dated 17.01.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Mohindergarh and the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner was named as an accused in case FIR No.126 dated 24.05.2000 registered under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC at Police Station Mohindergarh. Brief facts, as mentioned in the FIR (Ex.PW4/A) are required to be noticed. An application was received in the Police Station, Mohindergarh through SDM, Mohindergarh in which it was stated that the petitioner had created a hurdle in the discharge of official duties by the officials who had gone to remove the illegal possession of the CRR No.1993 of 2006 (O&M) -2- petitioner in compliance of orders of the Deputy Commissioner and this Court. It was further stated that the petitioner also threatened to kill the officials. Case of the prosecution is that Krishan Kumar J.E. alongwith Beldar and Constables Jaipal Singh and Bhagwan were deputed by the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Branch Mohindergarh to remove the encroachment on Narnaul-Mohindergarh-Dadri road on 24.05.2000. It was stated that the petitioner at that time assaulted Krishan Kumar, J.E. and used criminal force to stop them to discharge their official duties. The learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment dated 17th January, 2006 held the petitioner guilty for offences under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC. Vide a separate order of even date he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 332 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month on both counts, i.e. under Sections 353 and 506 IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner filed an appeal and the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 8th September, 2006 affirmed the sentence of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was running a khokha (vend) when various officials reached at the spot to remove the only source of the livelihood of the petitioner and his family. He has further stated that the petitioner being a poor and belonging to a lower strata of the society was running khokha (vend) for selling tea. CRR No.1993 of 2006 (O&M) -3- Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the police officials had exaggerated the version while saying that the petitioner had caused injuries to them. Krishan Kumar JE was medico legally examined on 20th May, 2000 by Dr.Dinesh Podder PW-8, former CHC, Mahendergarh. During his medico legal examination, Krishan Kumar JE had only complained of pain in the chest and there was no external injury. Dr.Dinesh Podder PW-8, in his cross-examination, stated that ‘it is correct that no external injury was seen and patient only complaint of pain’. In the circumstances, this Court tends to give credence to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that when the party led by J.E. went to the spot and wanted to remove khokha (vend) from which the petitioner was selling tea he may have felt jittery and could have resisted removal of the encroachment. But the fact that the petitioner had caused injuries seems to be an exaggeration as no external injury was found in the medical evidence. Therefore, this Court as a matter of abundant caution shall extend the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Therefore, as regards the offence under Section 332 IPC the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. However, petitioner has been rightly convicted for offences under Sections 353 and 506 IPC and for these offences the petitioner has been awarded maximum sentence of 6 months. On 28.09.2006 while issuing notice of motion the following order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench:- “This is petition against order dated 8.9.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against his conviction for the offence under Sections 332/353/506 IPC had been dismissed. CRR No.1993 of 2006 (O&M) -4- Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana for 9.11.2006. There is application for suspension of sentence of the petitioner. Notice of that application be also issued for 9.11.2006 to the respondent-State.” Thereafter on 09.11.2006 the following order was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench:- “This is an application for suspension of sentence. Maximum imprisonment imposed on the applicant- petitioner is of one year for the offence under Section 332 IPC whereas conviction had been for the offence under Sections 353/506 IPC as well. Petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last about two months. Injured complainant in this case Krishan Kumar PW1. It is directed that sentence of the petitioner shall remain suspended provided he deposits Rs.10,000/- in the Court of CJM, Narnaul for payment as compensation to the complainant and then he shall be released on bail by CJM, Narnaul to its satisfaction. Adjourned to 18.01.2007.” Thereafter another Co-ordinate Bench while admitting the revision had passed the following order on 13.03.2007:- “It is stated by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that in compliance to the order dated November 09, 2006, the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. Admitted.” As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone 2 months and 5 days and he is not involved in any other case CRR No.1993 of 2006 (O&M) -5- and the antecedents of the petitioner are absolutely clean. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner on one occasion, on a spur of moment, without any pre-meditation has challenged the authority of the officials in removing his khokha (vend) from which he was earning his livelihood by selling tea. For that the petitioner has already undergone 2 months and 5 days imprisonment. Furthermore, the occurrence pertains to the year 2000 and the petitioner has also deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Taking into consideration the nature of the offence, sufferance of protracted trial, antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 353 and 506 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone even while upholding his conviction. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) December 06, 2011 JUDGE ashish/rps