Criminal Appeal No. 922-SB of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 922-SB of 2002 Date of decision: August 16, 2010 Kuldeep and another .....APPELLANTS VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate Mr Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S .MANN.J. (Oral): The appellants, alongwith Rajesh, were tried for the offences under Sections 186/332/333/353/34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 29/30.4.2002, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak acquitted Rejesh, co-accused of the appellants, of the charges against him. Only the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences as under: a) Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months; b) Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 332 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 30 days; Criminal Appeal No. 922-SB of 2002 -2- c) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 353 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 30 days; and d) Fine of Rs.500/-each under Section 186 read with Section 34 IPC and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the fine imposed upon the appellants, Rs.6500/- were ordered to be paid as compensation to injured-complainant Sanjay Sangwan, Assistant Security Officer. According to the prosecution, complainant Sanjay Sangwan was working as Assistant Security Officer in the PGIMS, Rohtak. On 27.7.1999, he, alongwith Ram Kishan, a Security-man, went to House No.14-J in the residential complex of the PGIMS, Rohtak on a scooter for removing the un-authorized rehris parked there. When they reached near the house of Dr N.K.Maghu, appellant Kuldeep was found selling bhutta (corn) on his rehri. The complainant told him that parking of rehris in the medical campus was an offence and accordingly, asked him to remove his rehri. At this appellant Kuldeep moved his rehri to a distance of 3/4 steps and parked it there. He then picked up a brick and hit the scooter of the complainant. In the meantime, two young boys with dark complexion and round faces, each aged about 20/25 years, one of whom was wearing a red T-shirt, besides a grey trouser, armed with lathis came there. The complainant did not know their names. They inquired from the complainant as to who he was to get the rehri removed and went ahead in giving lathi Criminal Appeal No. 922-SB of 2002 -3- blow on the head of the complainant. When the complainant tried to pick up a danda in his defence, appellant Kuldeep gave a lathi blow on the finger of his left hand. When Ram Kishan, security man tried to save the complainant, all the three scuffled with him and gave him fist blows and slaps. On seeing the passers-by getting attracted, all the three assailants while carrying their weapons escaped from the spot. Complainant-Sanjay Sangwan was medico-legally examined by PW-1 Dr R.P Verma on 27.7.1999 and the following injuries were noticed on his person: 1. 3 cm x 3 cm lacerated wound on the middle of scalp approximately 6 cm behind the interior hair line. He advised Surgeon opinion; and 2. Complaint of pain in left hand. He advised Ortho Surgeon opinion. Lateron, the said doctor gave his opinion that the injury on the left hand of complainant Sanjay Sangwan was grievous in nature as there was a fracture of proximal phalanx of the index finger. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the prosecution case, especially, regarding identity of Azad Singh-appellant. However, keeping in view the order passed by this Court on 7.9.2002 that the appellants appeared to have reasonably a good case for reduction of sentence, I am afraid the arguments sought to be submitted on behalf of the appellants on merits of the case cannot be entertained. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that the appellants are first offenders and the sole bread-earners of their respective Criminal Appeal No. 922-SB of 2002 -4- families. At the time of the occurrence, appellant Kuldeep was 21 years of age, while appellant Azad was 24 years of age. Both of them are married and having children to look after. Both the appellants are brothers and their father Raj Singh is a retired government servant. They have already undergone substantive sentence of about 4½ months. Therefore, the appellants be released on probation of good conduct or in any case, their substantive sentences of imprisonment be reduced to that already undergone by them. Learned State counsel has submitted that the appellants had attacked the complainant, an Assistant Security Officer of PGIMS, Rohtak, who, while discharging his official duties, alongwith a security-man, had asked appellant-Kuldeep to remove his rehri, but at that point of time, both the appellants opened an assault and caused injuries to him, besides giving fist blows and slaps to security-man, who was accompanying the complainant at the relevant time. They had violated the instructions issued by the PGIMS, Rohtak for not parking the rehris in the campus. Therefore, none of the appellants deserves any concession in the matter of their sentences. However, he has placed on record custody certificates, as per which each of the appellants has undergone an actual period of 4 months and 14 days in jail, out of the total sentence of 5 years imposed upon them. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that none of the appellants deserves to be extended the benefit of probation as they had taken the law in their own hand by first parking the rehri in the complex and thereafter, assaulting the complainant and his co-employee, who had been assigned the duty of maintaining security in the area. However, keeping in view that the occurrence in Criminal Appeal No. 922-SB of 2002 -5- question had taken place in the year 1999 and that none of the appellants is a previous convict, the Court is of the view that ends of justice would be best met if the substantive sentences of the appellants for the offence under Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC are reduced to two years. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants for the various offences, as recorded by the trial Court, is maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants for the offence under Section 333 read with Section 34 IPC are reduced from rigorous imprisonment for five years to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 332/34, 186/34 and 353/34 IPC are maintained and so also the various sentences of fine, alongwith the default clauses. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall, however, run concurrently. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. August 16, 2010 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds JUDGE