Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2000 Date of Decision: 26.2.2009 Joginder Pal and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Saurav Garg, Advocate for Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Joginder Pal along with his son Shiv Kumar have been convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. Joginder Pal was found guilty of offence under Section 452 IPC and was awarded two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 45 days. He was also convicted and sentenced under Section 354 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Shiv Kumar was found guilty of offence under Section 452 IPC Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2000 2 and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted and sentenced under Section 323/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.250/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 45 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against the conviction and sentence, awarded by the trial Court, petitioners preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, who maintained their conviction and sentence. Petitioners were prosecuted in case FIR No. 213 dated 15.9.1995 registered at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, under Sections 452, 323, 354 IPC. FIR in the present case was recorded on the statement of Tarsem Lal. The statement Ex.PA was recorded by Bhupinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector in the Police Post Industrial Area, Hoshiarpur. Tarsem Lal stated that he is resident of village Piplanwala and do agriculture work and on 13.9.1995 at about 9.30 P.M. after taking his meals, he was sleeping with his family members, when, he heard certain noises from his courtyard. He opened the bolts of the door, came out and saw that Joginder Pal was armed with dang and his son Shiv Kumar was empty handed and were giving abuses. Joginder Pal raised a lalkara to teach a lesson for practicing exorcism. Then Shiv Kumar took Tarsem Lal in his grips and Joginder Pal gave a dang blow which hit on the head of complainant. Another blow was given by Joginder Pal which hit on the right arm of Tarsem Lal. His sister Jaswinder Kaur came from Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2000 3 inside to separate them. Then Shiv Kumar had taken Jaswinder Kaur in his grips and Joginder Pal gave her fist blows and had torn the clothes of Jaswinder Kaur. Noise was raised which attracted Joga Singh, Satnam Singh, residents of the village. Then accused ran away from the spot along with their weapons. Thereafter, the injured were brought to the hospital. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Charges were framed against the petitioner. Dr. I.M. Sud, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, was examined as PW.1. He stated that he had medicolegally examined Tarsem Lal on 13.9.1995 at 11.25 PM and he had found the following injuries:- “1. Lacerated wound 0.3 X 1.1 cm into S/C deep over left lateral half of forehead/oblique with lower medial end being 1.9 cm from outer end of left eye brow. Fresh bleeding was present. Slight swelling around. 2. Oblique reddish abrasion 4.2 X 0.3 cm over the back of upper one third end of right forearm”. Tarsem Lal, injured-complainant, appeared as PW.2 and reiterated the version given by him in the FIR. Jaswinder Kaur appeared as PW.3 and corroborated the testimony of his brother PW.2 Tarsem Lal. Mohinder Pal, Head Constable, appeared as PW.4, and Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2000 4 proved the recovery of torn clothes of PW.3 Jaswinder Kaur i.e. jamper (shirt) Ex.P1 and salwar Ex.P2. Satnam Singh appeared as PW.5. He has stated that Tarsem Lal is his tenant. He saw the accused grappling with Jaswinder Kaur. Bhupinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.6, had investigated the case. Thereafter, the prosecution had closed its evidence. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Mr. Saurav Garg, Advocate, appearing for Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners, stated that there is delay in lodging of the report. He has further submitted that PW.3 Jaswinder Kaur had been medicolegally examined but her Medicolegal Report has not been produced. It has been further submitted that there are minor discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of PW.2 Tarsem Lal and PW.3 Jaswinder Kaur. In the night when complainant party after taking their meals had retired, the accused had gone to the house of the complainant armed with the weapons. There was no justification for them to go to the house of the complainant. PW.3 Jaswinder kaur has stated that she was married for seven years and she had taken divorce from her husband, therefore, she was living with his brother. In the night, PW.2 Tarsem Lal and PW.3 Jaswinder Kaur are expected to be present in their house. PW.2 Tarsem Lal will be the last person to falsely implicate anybody for the injuries suffered by him. A perusal of the injuries on the person of Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2000 5 PW.2 Tarsem Lal show that he had suffered an injury on his forehead. Injury No.1 cannot be self-suffered. PW.2 Tarsem Lal has further stated that the clothes of PW.3 Jaswinder Kaur were torn and she was made naked. In these circumstances, when the testimony of witnesses aspire confidence and is free from blemish of contradictions, improvements and discrepancies and the two Courts below have found their deposition to be trustworthy, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court has no plausible reason to differ with the findings given by the two Courts below. Accordingly, conviction of petitioners under Sections 452, 323, 354 IPC is maintained. At this stage, Mr. Saurav Garg, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have undergone 7½ months of their actual sentence. He has further submitted that petitioners are ready and willing to compensate family of PW.2 Tarsem Lal not only for the injury but for the agony and pain suffered by them. I find merit in this contention raised by counsel for the petitioners. Taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence in the present case took place on 13.9.1995, I am of the view that it will be too harsh to send petitioners behind the bars after 14 years of occurrence. Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioners is reduced already undergone, however, sentence of fine is enhanced qua each petitioner to Rs.25,000/-. The amount of enhanced fine shall be disbursed to injured PW.2 Tarsem Lal. The fine shall be deposited within three Criminal Revision No. 163 of 2000 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case fine is not deposited, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioners. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 26, 2009 “DK”