Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 1 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 Niranjan Singh and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 Gurmeet Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Date of Decision: 30th March, 2010 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Five persons, namely Niranjan Singh son of Ram Lal, Amar Singh son of Ram Singh, Gurmeet Singh son of Amar Singh, Nirmal Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 2 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 Singh son of Amar Singh and Ranjit Singh son of Niranjan Singh, were named as accused in case FIR No. 29 dated 24.4.1996, registered at Police Station Bhadson, under Sections 323, 325, 506, 148 and 149 IPC. They were tried by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nabha, who convicted and sentenced them, vide his judgment dated 17.4.1999, as under:- i) Niranjan Singh, convict, is sentenced U/S 325 of IPC to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.300/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 15 days, and he also sentenced U/S 323 of IPC to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for 10 days. He is also sentenced U/Ss 149, 325, 323 of IPC to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for 10 days. ii) Convict Gurmeet Singh is sentenced U/S 325 of IPC to undergo R.I. for a period of one year as well as to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 15 Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 3 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 days. He is also sentenced U/S 149 of IPC to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for 15 days. iii) Convict Ranjit Singh is sentenced U/S 323 of IPC to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for 10 days. He is also sentenced U/S 149/325 of IPC to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo S.I. for a period of 10 days. iv) Nirmal Singh convict is sentenced U/S 323 of IPC to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo S.I. for 10 days. He is also sentenced U/S 149/325 of IPC to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for 10 days. v) Amar Singh convict is sentenced U/S 149/325/323 of IPC to undergo R.I. for Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 4 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo S.I. for 10 days. Aggrieved against the same, they filed an appeal. The Appellate Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide its judgment dated 4.3.2003, while acquitting Amar Singh of the charge, partly accepted the appeal of the remaining appellants and sentenced them as under:- Name of Accused Offence Under Section Sentence and fine Niranjan Singh 325 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 323 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Nirmal Singh and Ranjit Singh 325/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. 323/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 5 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 Name of Accused Offence Under Section Sentence and fine Gurmit Singh 323 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 325/34 IPC To undergo R.I. for a period nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since, during the pendency of appeal, Gurmit Singh was declared as Proclaimed Offender, so warrants for execution of sentence against him were ordered to be issued and sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. The other three accused were taken into custody. Niranjan Singh, Nirmal Singh and Ranjit Singh have preferred the present revision petition. At the motion hearing, their sentence was ordered to be suspended vide order dated 11.3.2003. Lateron, Gurmeet Singh was arrested and had filed the connected Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 in this Court, which is being heard and decided together. On14.1.2005, learned Single Bench of this Court had passed an order, directing Gurmeet Singh to appear before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. Subsequently, Gurmeet Singh was also granted bail by this Court on 3.3.2005. Brief facts of the case are that Charan Singh son of Magh Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 6 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 Singh was admitted, in an injured condition, in Primary Health Center, Bhadson, on 23.4.1996 and an intimation to this effect was sent to the Station House Officer of Police Station Bhadson. Jai Gopal, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Bhadson, was deputed to record the statement of the injured. However, the attending doctor, declared him unfit to make the statement. Subsequently, when Kartar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had approached the doctor, the injured was declared fit to make the statement, and his statement was recorded. In his statement, injured Charan Singh had stated that one Zora Singh son of Gurdev Singh was having a dispute over the land with Niranjan Singh and the complainant used to accompany Zora Singh to the Courts. On 23.4.1996 at about 6.30 PM., when the complainant was proceeding from his village towards the fields, a Maruti car, boarded by the accused stopped, which was being driven by Niranjan Singh. After alighting from the car, they started abusing the complainant by saying that he would be taught a lesson for extending help to Zora Singh. Niranjan Singh was stated to have given a takua blow on the head of the complainant. To ward off the same, he had raised his left hand and the takua had hit the same from the reverse side. Thereafter, Niranjan Singh gave a takua blow from reverse side on his left shoulder. Gurmeet Singh gave a gandasi blow from reverse side, which hit the complainant in the knee of his right leg. Niranjan Singh gave a takua blow from the reverse side on the left knee of the complainant. Amar Singh had raised a lalkara that the complainant be not allowed to escape alive. At that time, Nirmal Singh and Ranjit Singh gave stick blows on the legs, thigh and arms of Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 7 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 the complainant. On hearing the noise of complainant, Zamal-din, who was working in the nearby fields, was attracted to the place of occurrence. The accused fled away from the spot in their Maruti car along with their respective weapons. Ambey Parshad had also reached at the spot and took the injured to Bhadson Hospital, in his Maruti van. The above said FIR was investigated. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against all the petitioners. They were charged for an offence under Sections 148, 325, 323 and 506 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charan Singh, injured, was medicolegally examined by Dr. B.S. Verma, Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Bhadson, on 24.4.1996, and found the following injuries:- “1. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm X .5 cm over the front of middle of right leg. The wound is fresh and actively bleeding. The wound is bone deep. Advised x-ray right leg lower part. A.P. and lateral view. 2. Lacerated wound 3 cm X cm over the left knee joint on the front of the joint. It is fresh wound and bone deep and profusely bleeding. Ad. X-ray left knee joint. AP and lateral view. Moments of left knee. Joints are restricted. 3. Abrasion 3 cm X 1 cm over the dorsal surface of left forearm. It is oozing blood Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 8 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 and is about 8 cm from the left wrist joint. 4. Contusion size 6 inches x 1 inch over the ventral aspect of left elbow joint. It is pink in colour. 5. Fresh abrasion over the right knee joint in the lower part. Size 2 cm X 1 cm. 6. Small laceration 3 mm diameter on the posterior lateral aspect left shoulder joint. There is swelling around it and moments are restricted”. Injuries No.1 and 2 were kept under observation, whereas other injuries, after radiological examination of the complainant, were declared as simple. Dr. Jarnail Singh, Radiologist, had opined that there was a fracture of upper end of fibula and of patella pertaining to left knee. The fracture was also found in the right leg of shaft and head of fibula. Charan Singh, complainant, appeared as PW.5, who had deposed regarding the manner in which he was given the injuries by the petitioners. The prosecution had examined eight witnesses. Ambey Parshad, who had taken the injured to the hospital, appeared as PW.7. PW.8 Amar Singh had stated that Ambey Parshad had brought his father to the house after he had received the injuries. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 9 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 testimony of PW.5 Charan Singh, who had been duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the testimony of PW.7 Ambey Parshad, who took him to the Primary Health Center, Bhadson. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below. No patent illegality or irregularity, in the judgments rendered by both the Courts below, is discernible. Injured Charan Singh is the last person to absolve the real accused. He had suffered two fractures in the occurrence, which were in the knees of both legs, non-vital parts of the body. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ranjit Singh, Nirmal Singh and Niranjan Singh have actually undergone for a few days out of the sentence awarded to them. The occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year 1996 and the petitioners are in the corridors of the Courts for the last about 14 years. They have already suffered a lot of mental pain and agony of protracted trial. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any such offence before the registration of the present case and thereafter. They are also ready and willing to compensate the injured. Sending the petitioners behind the bars, at this stage, will not serve any useful purpose. It is further submitted that the petitioners are now living a life of a peaceful and honest citizen. At the time of pronouncing of judgment by the learned trial Court, petitioner Niranjan Singh was aged about 60 years, whereas petitioners Gurmeet Singh, Nirmal Singh and Ranjit Singh were aged about 21, 24 and 23 years, respectively. They have families to support of which they are sole bread earners. Criminal Revision No. 534 of 2003 And 10 Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2005 In these circumstances, an opportunity is granted to the petitioners to reform themselves and tread a path of rectitude. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of six months, subject to their furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioners shall undertake to appear and receive the sentence before the Court as and when called upon to do so and be of good behaviour. However, the cost of litigation is assessed at Rs.10,000/- each. The same shall be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, the cost is not deposited, benefit of probation shall not accrue to the appellant. The total amount of Rs.40,000/-, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the injured as compensation. With the observations made above, both the revision petitions are disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 30, 2010 “DK”