In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 770 of 2002 Date of decision: 24.03.2009 Pal Singh and others ... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Vide judgment dated 11.11.1999, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, all the four accused-petitioners (herein referred as “the petitioners”) were convicted under Sections 325, 323, 324, 34 IPC and sentenced as under :- Pal Singh U/s 325 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. U/s 323 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. Kesar Singh U/s 325/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. U/s 324 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. Crl. Revision No. 770 of 2002 -2- *** Gurmail Singh U/s 325/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. U/s 324 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. Bhupinder Singh U/s 325/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. U/s 323 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed vide judgment dated 9.4.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that Pal Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Kesar Singh petitioners as well as Sher Singh injured are brothers. On 31.8.1993, at about 4/5.00 p.m. when Sher Singh was irrigating his land, and his son Jagtar Singh and wife Netar Kaur were removing weeds from the Paddy. The petitioners armed with salanga and gandasi came there. They enquired about his son Jagtar Singh for teaching him a lesson for abusing Kesar Singh. The complainant told them that Jagtar Singh was their (petitioners) nephew and he will make him understand. However, Kesar Singh abused him and gave a gandasi blow to the complainant Sher Singh (herein referred as “the complainant”) on the left side of his head. The complainant grappled with Kesar Singh. Kesar Singh exhorted his companions to cause injuries. On this, Gurmeet Singh inflicted gandasi blow hitting on his left wrist; Bhupinder Singh inflicted lathi blow on his left wrist. He further inflicted lathi blow on his head, as a sequel of which he fell down. While lying down, Pal Singh gave salanga blow on his Crl. Revision No. 770 of 2002 -3- *** right ankle and another blow on his right leg. On raising hue and cry, Jagtar Singh came at the spot and the petitioners ran away. Jagtar Singh also managed to flee away on seeing them as they were after him. On the basis of the statement (Ex.PW5/F), case was registered against the petitioners, which was investigated by ASI Nirmal Singh (PW5). Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Charges against the petitioners were framed for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined Sher Singh (PW1), Jagtar Singh (PW2), Sadhu Singh (PW3), Baljit Singh (PW4), ASI Nirmal Singh (PW5) and Dr. Ashwani Kumar (PW6). The trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by them also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Since the case is based on the testimony of the injured Sher Singh (PW1) as well as his son Jagtar Singh (PW2) eye witness of the occurrence, therefore, the same being consistent with the medical evidence as also that there was no reason to substitute the present petitioners in place of the real culprits are trustworthy. No other flaw has been pointed out to create a hole in the prosecution case. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. As such, the findings of fact returned by both the Courts below are liable to be sustained. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention that all the three petitioners namely Pal Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Kesar Singh are brothers of injured complainant Sher Singh. Bhupinder Singh petitioner is their relative and it was just a family feud and the petitioners have already undergone some part of the sentence, therefore, the petitioners deserve some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Having scrutinized the records, it is revealed that dispute is between brothers inter-se. The occurrence took place way back in the year 1993. Pal Singh was 50 years old and Gurmeet Singh and Kesar Singh were more than 40 years at that time. Now after 15 years, they must be in their old age. Admittedly, they are the first offenders. Occurrence appears to Crl. Revision No. 770 of 2002 -4- *** have taken place on heat of moment on account of the fact that Jagtar Singh had abused them. Thus, under these circumstances, it would not be in the fitness of things to send the petitioners to imprisonment at this stage. However, ends of justice would be met if benefit of probation is granted to them and Sher Singh complainant could be compensated for the injuries. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in equal shares to the complainant Sher Singh, within three months from today, failing which they petition shall be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib for compliance. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim his remuneration as per rules. March 24, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge