Crl.R. No. 2432 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R. No. 2432 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.10.2011 ... Kuljit Singh @ Neeta and others ................Petitioners vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Sh. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Sh. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant. ... K.C. Puri, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Smt. Harveen Bhardwaj, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners against the judgment dated 20.1.2007 passed by Sh. Harbhajan Dass, PCS, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, was dismissed. Breifly stated, the accused – now revisionists, were sent to stand trial for offence under Sections 326, 323, 34 IPC, by Police Crl.R. No. 2432 of 2011 -2- Station Dorangala vide FIR No. 50 dated 26.8.2001. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.8.2001, the complainant was going to fields for watering his paddy crop. When the complainant reached near the house of Gurbachan Singh Sarpanch at about 1.00 P.M. accused Kuljeet Singh @ Neeta, Palwinder Singh @ Manga and Rattan Lal met the complainant. Accused Rattan Lal raised lalkara that complainant be taught a lesson for asking them time and again for demolishing the boundaries of his fields. On this accused Palwinder Singh gave a fist blow which hit on the lips of the face of the complainant and accused Rattan Lal grappled the complainant from his back side and accused Kuljit Singh @ Neeta gave a dattar blow which hit on the left leg of the complainant and accused Palwinder Singh gave a fist blow which hit on the left side of the chest of the complainant. The complainant raised a noise which attracted Sukhwinder Singh brother of the complainant. After conclusion of the investigation, charge under Sections 326, 323, 34 IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Jarnail Singh – complainant/injured, PW-2 Sukhwinder Singh, PW-3 HC Hira Singh, PW-4 ASI Kuljinder Singh, PW-5 Dr. Arvind Mahajan, PW-6 Dr. Jagjiwan Lal, Radiologist and closed the prosecution evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to them, to which they denied. The accused were called upon to lead the defence evidence and they Crl.R. No. 2432 of 2011 -3- examined DW-1 SI Kulbir Singh, DW-2 Sh. Puran Singh Purewal DSP (Retired), DW-3 Surjit Singh and closed the evidence. Learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence found the accused guilty and sentence them as under:- A) u/s 326 IPC Accused Kuljit Singh was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of ` 200/-, failing which the accused shall further undergo RI for a period of one month. B) u/s 326/34 IPC Accused Palwinder Singh @ Manga and Rattan Lal were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year each and to pay fine of ` 200/- each, and in default of payment of fine the defaulter shall further undergo RI for a period of one month. C) u/s 323 IPC Accused Palwinder Singh @ Manga was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay fine of ` 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo RI for a period of one month. D) u/s 323/34 IPC Accused Kuljit Singh and Rattan Lal were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months each and to pay fine of ` 100/- each, and in default of payment of fine the defaulter shall further Crl.R. No. 2432 of 2011 -4- undergo RI for a period of one month. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal. The said appeal was heard by Smt. Harveen Bhardwaj, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, and vide judgment dated 26.9.2011, the said appeal was dismissed. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 20.1.2007 passed by Sh. Harbhajan Dass, PCS, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur and judgment dated 26.9.2011 passed by Smt. Harveen Bhardwaj, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, the present revision petition has been filed. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners have placed on the file compromise, which is marked as Exhibit CX. Affidavit of Jarnail Singh complainant has also been placed on the file, which is marked as Exhibit CX/1. Jarnail Singh is present in Court and has been identified by his counsel Sh. Vineet Chaudhary. The petitioners have not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but it is submitted that the revision petition be decided in view of the compromise. Learned State counsel has submitted that in case compromise is to be accepted, the petitioners be directed to deposit the cost of litigation. So far as conviction recorded by both the Courts below is concerned, that has not been challenged. Otherwise also, no ground for interference in the conviction order is made out. As per the custody certificate placed on the file, accused - Kuljeet Singh @ Neeta and Palwinder Singh @ Manga have Crl.R. No. 2432 of 2011 -5- undergone incarnation for a period of 23 days, whereas accused - Rattan Lal has undergone incarnation for a period of 1 month and 8 days as on 18.10.2011, out of substantive sentence of 1 years. So, in view of the compromise, their sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone by them, but each of the petitioner is directed to deposit ` 5,000/- before the trial Court as fine. They shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case, after deposit of ` 5,000/- each. Disposed of. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for compliance. ( K.C. Puri ) 20.10.2011 Judge chugh