413 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl Revnllo1809 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION74709 Ramesh 8 Anr 4ee Oetitioners Versus Stateof Haryana Respondent Crl RevnIol 964 of 2004 1 AjitSinghS Ors SaePetitioners 0 0 Versus I C5 Stateof Haryana 03espondent I Z Present Shri Vikram Punia Advocate I for the petitioners in Crl Revrlo1809 of 2004 c6 Mr R Hooda Advocate 00 for the petitioners in Crl RevtJo1964 of 2004 7 Ms Ritu Punj Sr DAG Haryana Z 0m r n DAYA CHAUDHARYJ This judgmentshall dispose of two Crl Revision petition bearing Nos809 of 2004 and 1964of 2004 Crl Revllo1809 of 2004 has been filed by Ramesh and Mahabir whereas Ci Revrlol 964 of 2004 has been fiied by AjitSingh Jagdish Rishi Pal DilbaghSamunder and Babla Brief facts of the prosecutionstory are unfolded on the statement of PartapSingh who had stated to the policethat he was resident of viliageBadhana and was servingin Delhi Police Theyare Ove Rawat Seema 2012.10.09 10: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 414 Crl Revn No1809 of2004 21 brothersand on the dayof occurrence he was onleave Yesterdaywhen his younger brother Hawa Singhwas goingto his house from the 6e1ds then Shamsher Slo Kedara met him on the way and a quarreltook place between them His brother Randhir Singh father Ishwar Singhand he himself were grazingtheir cattle in villageKhanda in some open Iand and at about 1200 noon accused DiibaghSingh Gulab Singh SatpaiPatwari Shamsher Samundar Mahabir Ramesh Jagdishand Wazir armed with kulhari gandasiand Iathi etc came in a tractor4rolley from the side of tm Q viliage4ccused4jit gave a Ialkarathat the complainantpartyshould be 0 eliminated In the meanwhile all the accused attacked upon them with 0 I their respectiveweapons AccusedeShamsher gave a Iathi blow on the 9 head of complainantaccusedvlahabir caughthold of him and Shamsher I and Rishi PaI gave Iathi biows on his head and arm Due to that complainant fell down and the other remainingaccused gave injuriesto his father and brotherwith the helpof their respectiveweapons After hearing I the alarm Risala and other persons of the neighbourhood came there who c6 rescued them while the afterseeingthese persons fled C awayfrom the spotwith their respective weapons 7 Z lhe trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Qm petitioners under Section 1481149IPC for one year RI and fine of Rs3001 each and in default of paymentof fine to further undergoRl for 20 days under Section 3231149IPC for six months Rl and fine of Rs 2001 each and in defauit of paymentof fine to further undergoRl for 15 days under Section 3241149IPC for one year Ri and One of Rs001 each and in default of paymentof fine to further undergoRl for 20 daysand under Section 3251149 IPC for two years Rl and fine of Rs 500 each and in default of paymentof fine to furtherundergoRl for one month Againstthe judgmentof trial Coun the petitionerspreferred an appeal before Additional Sessions Judge Sonepatwho vide its order Rawat Seema 2012.10.09 10: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 415 J Cr Revr Nol 809 of 2004 31 dated72004 maintainedthe conviction but the order on the quantumof sentence was modified and the sentence awarded to the accusec under Section 148 IPC was reduced from one year RI to SlX monthsRl sentence awarded under Section 324 IPC was reduced from oneyear RI to six moths Rl and the sentence awarded under Section 325 IPC was reduced from two years RI to one year Rl Mr Vikram Punia Iearnedcounsel for petitionersRamesh and Mahabir arguedthat Ramesh had falselybeen implicated and no injurywas 1 attributedto him Mr Punia funher arguedthat the motive putup by the 0 has nothingto do with Ramesh as an altercation took place 0 I between complainantand other accused who were of the same family C5 whereas was neitherthe member of that familynor any I altercationtook place between him and complainant Mr Punia also Z arguedthat as per the contents of FlR Ramesh was armed with Gandasi and Mahabir caughthold of injuredwhereas the appellateCourt has I attributeda Iathi blow to Ramesh The version of appellateCoun wasin c6 sharpcontrast with the FIR Even from the statement of complainants m PartapPWm11 and Ishwar Singh PV91 it is clear that Ramesh had 7 Z falselybeen implicated Mr SR Hooda Iearned counsel for petitionersAJit Singh Jagdish Rishi Pal DilbaghSamunder Singhand BabIa has arguedthat the trial Court as well as the ApexCourt have not taken into consideration the very importantfact that there was no recoveryof weapons and recovery of weapons was a material case propettyand in absence thereof the petitioners cannot be connected with the cnme M Hooda further argued that in absence of recovety of any weapon and reponfrom FSL the case of the prosecution remains unoroved and the judgmentof both the Courts below are Iiableto be set aside Mr Hooda also 8rguedthat no site planof the placeof occurrence was provedbythe prosecutionand withoutproving Rawat Seema 2012.10.09 10: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 416 t D C1 RevnIlo1809 of 2004 41 the site plan of the place of occurrence the petitionerscannot be convicted Mr Hooda next arguedthat there are many contradictionsand discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and the ocular evidence has not been corroborated by medical evidence Even the statements of injured witnesses are full of material contradictions As per statement of complainantPartap Singh occurrence took placeon 281998whereas actualiyit took place on 271995 As per version of FlR accused Shamsher was armed with Iathi whereas as per statement of complainant 1 PattapSingh he was havinggandasi As per version of PWe1 PW2 and 0 PW the complainantpartyreceived simpleinjuriesfrom sharpedged 0 I weaponswhereas Dr Arun Garg PW41 has stated that injurieswere C received from blunt weapons and as such there is a contradictionbetween the statement of injuredand the statement givenbythe Doctor Mr Hooda Z further arguedthat Risal Singh who Iifted the injuredfrom the placeof occurrence in his Jhota Baggiand got admitted him Itl Civil Hospital I Sonepatdid not supportthe case of the prosecution and turned hostile It oll iS also the argumentof the Iearned counsel for the petitionersthat the 01 injuresreceived by the complainantand others were not same and were 7 Z altogether different as opinedbyDr Arun Garg 0W41 Ms Ritu Punj Iearned senior DAG Haryanaarguedthatthe case of the prosecutionhas fullybeen provedon the basis of statementof witnesses and medical evidence and the contradictionsand discrepancies pointedout by the Iearned counsel for the petitioners are minor and they are bound to occur with the passage of time There are no material contradictions and those contradictions are not fatal to the case of the prosecutionMs Punjfurther arguedthat the judgmentof tlIe triai Court has been upheldby the appellateCourt and their sentence have already been reduced and there is no groundto interfere with the judgmentsof both the couits below Rawat Seema 2012.10.09 10: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 417 CiRevn1809of2004 51 have heard Iearned counsel for the partiesand have also gonethroughthe judgmentsof both the Courts below and other documents avallableon record It is an admitted case of both the paniesthat the occurrence took placeand both the partiesreceived injuriesThe accused were armed with weapons and caused injuriesto the complainantparty The FlR was on 281995 and the accusedoetitioners were convicted bythe trial Court on 1 2003 and their appealwas dismissed on 72004 The 1 C2 accused are facingprotracted trial for the Iast 14 years Moreover theyare 0 first offenders have alreadysuffered mentallyand physicallyand no C0 I purposewould be served by sendingthem behind the bars after such a t5 Iong time Moreover all the are on bail Petitioners I AjitSingh Jagdish Rishi Pal DilbaghSamunder Singhand Babla have Z alreadyundergonemore than two months out of their actual sentence of Q one year and other remainingaccusedoetitioners have alreadyundergone I 14 daysof their actual sentence as theywere grantedbaii by this Court c6 vide order dated 232004 Ol After hearingIearnedcounsel for the pailies I do not find any vn Z illegaiity in theconviction of the petitionersHowever the factum of Iengthy Q trial of the petitionersbeingfirst offenders and sole bread winners of the familyare sufficient mitigatingcircumstances to extend the benefit of Probationof 0HendersAct to the petitioners Under these circumstances while maintaining the convictionof the petitionersit is directed that theyshall be released on probationfor a periodof one year under under Section 4 l I of the Probation of OHenders Act on their execution of personalbonds in the sum of Rs0001 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial MagistrateSonepat The petitioners are also directed to file an undertaking within a periodof two Il months to keep peace and be of goodbehaviour duringthe periodof fl Rawat Seema 2012.10.09 10: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 418 Cr RevnVol 809 of 2004 61 and to appear and receive sentence as and when called upon to do so if necessary 77 2009 IDAYA POOJa JUDGE V7 0 0 I C5 e I Z r c41 I 08 r W Il Rawat Seema 2012.10.09 10: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document