IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision 1912 of 2002 Date of Decision : October 04, 2010 Rodda Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Navin Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioners, alongwith their father Gurdial Singh, were named as accused in a private criminal complaint instituted by Achhru Ram-respondent. It was alleged therein that on an exhortation made by Gurdial Singh, the petitioners had caused injuries to complainant Achhru Ram and his son Jasmir Singh on 4.6.1992 at about 9/10 a.m. The cause of the occurrence was that on 1.6.1992 the complainant had taken his bullocks for sale to cattle market, Ropar in a tractor trolley belonging to Gurdial Singh, which was hired for Rs.350/-. After the sale of bullocks on the same day, the complainant paid Rs.300/- to Gurdial Singh. However, he did not pay the remaining amount of Crl. Revision 1912 of 2002 -2- Rs.50/-, as according to him, Gurdial Singh already owed that amount to him and, therefore, the balance stood adjusted. Gurdial Singh accused was discharged at the time of framing of charges. However, the petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 326/324/323/34 and 452 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 6.11.2000, the trial Court convicted them for the aforementioned offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offences under Sections 326/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences under Sections 324/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offences under Sections 323/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 452 IPC. In default of payment of fine, each of the petitioners was directed to undergo specific sentences. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal which was partly accepted by the lower appellate Court on 11.9.2002 by acquitting them for the charge under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Their conviction and sentences for the offences under Sections 324/34, 323/34 and 452 IPC were maintained. Immediately upon the decision of their appeal by the lower Crl. Revision 1912 of 2002 -3- appellate Court, all the four petitioners were taken into custody and it was only on 17.10.2002 that they were granted the concession of bail by this court when the present revision was admitted. As is apparent from the records, there was no previous enmity between the parties. The occurrence had developed on account of Gurdial Singh, father of the petitioners, asking complainant Achhru Ram to pay the remaining fare of Rs.50/- for taking his bullocks to the cattle market. The complainant, however, refused to pay the said amount on the ground that Gurdial Singh already owed Rs.50/- to him and, thus, the balance stood adjusted. The present occurrence had taken place more than eighteen years ago. The sword of criminal prosecution has remained hanging on the head of the petitioners all this while. All of them belong to one family. They are stated to be first offenders. Under these circumstances, it would be a fit case for reduction of the sentences of imprisonment of the petitioners to that already undergone by them. At the same time, the fine of Rs.2000/- already imposed upon the petitioners for the offence under Section 452 IPC can be enhanced to Rs.20,000/- so that the enhanced amount of fine may be paid to complainant Achhru Ram and his injured son Jasmir Singh, as compensation. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 324/34, 323/34 and 452 IPC is maintained. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already Crl. Revision 1912 of 2002 -4- undergone by them. The fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 452 IPC is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- and in the event of non- payment of fine, the defaulting petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine imposed upon the petitioners for the offences under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC alongwith their default clauses are maintained. The petitioners shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine with the trial court within three months from today, which shall, thereafter, be paid to complainant Achhru Ram and his injured son Jasmir Singh equally, as compensation. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) October 04, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1