In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1960 of 2004 Date of decision: 20.05.2009 Gulzar Singh and another ... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The accused-petitioners and Gulab Singh (non petitioner) have been convicted vide judgment dated 22.2.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Clas, Ferozepur, under Sections 326/323/324/34 IPC and sentenced as under :- Gulab Singh U/s 326/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.150/- on two counts. Gulzar Singh U/s 326 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. U/s 324 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.150/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-. Resham Singh U/s 326 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Crl. Revision No. 1960 of 2004 -2- *** U/s 324 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.150/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-. The appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide its judgment dated 15.9.2004. However, this revision petition has been preferred by Gulzar Singh and Resham Singh only. The factual matrix of the case is that on 22.7.1994, ASI Saman Singh along with other police officers was present in the police station when he received information regarding suffering of the injuries by three persons namely Balbir Singh, Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh, thus, he went to the Civil Hospital, Ferozepur and after seeking opinion of the doctor with regard to the fitness of the injured to make statement, recorded statement of Kashmir Singh, who in his statement disclosed that on the intervening night of 21/22.7.1994, when he along with his brother Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh was returning home after sinking well, and reached near the house of Gulab Singh, he told Gulab Singh that he should chain his dog. At this Gulab Singh raprimanded him and while feeling annoyed, he armed with dang, Gulzar Singh armed with kirpan and Resham Singh armed with gandasi came there. Gulab Singh raised lalkara that they (complainant party) be caught hold and taught a lesson for asking them to chain the dog. Gulzar Singh inflicted a kirpan blow on the head of Kashmir Singh and Gulab Singh gave dang blow on his back. On raising hue and cry, his brother Jagir Singh and Balbir Singh came forward at his rescue, but the accused also caused injuries to them. On their raising hue and cry, Kashmir Singh son of Harnam Singh, came and rescued them. Balbir Singh and Kashmir Singh sons of Waryam Singh also abused them. A case was registered on the statement of Kashmir Singh and investigated. The motive behind the occurrence was that dog of Gulab Singh etc. barked at Balbir Crl. Revision No. 1960 of 2004 -3- *** Singh etc. and the complainant asked Gulab Singh to chain their dog. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses; prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence; collected medicolegal reports and ultimately challaned the accused. The petitioners were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 326/323/324/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Faqir Masih (PW1), Kashmir Singh (PW2), Jagir Singh (PW3), Balbir Singh (PW4), ASI Saman Singh (PW5) and Dr. M.M.S. Dhillon (PW6). In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. The accused examined Dr. Balraj Bhora (DW1) in their defence. The trial ended in conviction and the appeal preferred by them also failed. All the accused except Gulab Singh, preferred the revision petition. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not weigh with the mind of the court. The case is based on the testimony of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular version. It is a case of cross version and in view of the evidence led by the prosecution the question of one party being aggressor and the other defensive is out of place. It was a free fight between the parties on the barking of the dog. As regards the plea of admission of the injured in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, instead of some nearer place of Guruhar Sahai, it may be observed that no fault could be found with the prosecution version on this ground. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for seeking some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence in this case took place on 22.7.1994. The petitioners have suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. The injuries found on the persons of the injured are grievous in nature. The Crl. Revision No. 1960 of 2004 -4- *** petitioners have already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence. The petitioners are neighbourers. No evidence revealing future bitterness between the parties has been brought on record. Now after such a long time, to send them to jail would amount to again sowing the seeds of enmity between them. Thus, ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to already undergone and the injured could be compensated for the injuries suffered by them. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the petitioners would pay a sum of Rs.15000/- each which would be paid to the injured in equal shares, within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur for compliance. May 20, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge