Crl. Revision No.630 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.630 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.7.2010 Ranjit Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioners Ranjit Singh, Jai Singh, Jarnail Singh, Gulzar Singh, Dharam Pal and Karam Singh had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, under sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 read with Section 149 IPC and all of them were sentenced as under:- U/S 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/S 323/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/S 324/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/S 325/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/S 326/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two weeks each. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioners preferred appeal against the judgment of their conviction/sentence, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide judgment dated 11th February, 2010. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts Crl. Revision No.630 of 2010 2 below, the petitioners have approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioners is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 26th May, 1994, when a police party headed by ASI Phool Singh was present in front of police station Naggal in connection with checking of vehicles, complainant Joginder Singh alongwith his brother Ajaib Singh reached there and made his statement Ex.PW1/A to the effect that he is resident of village Badsan and a farmer by profession. His father Telu Ram had purchased a vacant land situated at the backside of their house from Banwari in the year 1985 vide a registered sale deed. He further stated that a civil dispute about the said land was pending between them and Ranjit Singh and others and the injunction sought by Ranjit Singh regarding the disputed land had been declined. He further stated that on the night intervening 25.5.1994 and 26.5.1994 at about 12.30 A.M., the complainant, his brothers Ajaib Singh and Mahender Singh were opening a door from inside their house. Ranjit Singh (petitioner herein) and one Pala Ram son of Norata Ram reached there. Ranjit Singh hit him with a lathi from the hole/opening Crl. Revision No.630 of 2010 3 of the wall, as a result of which lips of the complainant were cut and his one teeth was broken. Ranjit Singh again tried to hit the complainant with the lathi, but the complainant and his brothers Mahender Singh and Ajaib Singh caught hold of the lathi. Then Dharampal threw acid from a tumbler which fell on the face and clothes of the complainant. Dharam Pal also threw acid on Mahender Singh and Ajaib Singh. Meanwhile, Karam Singh, who was armed with Barchhi also reached there and hit Ajaib Singh on his right hand near the thumb. When the complainant and his brothers came out in the court yard of their house, Jarnail Singh, Gulzar Singh, Jai Singh all sons of Tulsi Ram climbed on the roof of a room and started throwing brick bats on the complainant party. In the mean time, Ram Pal son of Puran Singh and father of the complainant namely Tulsi Ram reached there and they rescued the injured from the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused went from the spot. On the basis of this statement formal FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie case under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 read with Section 149 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/ petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioners, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They refuted the incriminating circumstances Crl. Revision No.630 of 2010 4 and pleaded false implication. They examined two witnesses in their defence i.e. Dr. Dinesh Goyal as DW1 and Dr. Neelam Dogra as DW2. They also produced on record Ex.D1 (copy of statement of Dr. V.K. Sharma and Ex.D2 (copy of bail application moved by accused). On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them and sentenced them as already indicated above. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on February 11, 2010. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them. The appellate court has also rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioners is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioners are poor persons and main bread winners of their family and not previous convict. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have also arrived at a compromise. He has drawn attention of the court to the compromise dated 7th May, 2010, which has been placed Crl. Revision No.630 of 2010 5 on record as Annexure P-2. The complainant and injured are present in Court. They are duly identified by their counsel, who has submitted documents in proof of their identity. The same are taken on record as Marks A, B & C. He submits that in terms of the compromise, Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid as compensation to the complainant/injured. Learned counsel for both the parties have referred to paras 15 and 16 of judgment of the apex court reported as Ishwar Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1 to contend that factum of compromise was taken into consideration by the apex court in the said judgment while reducing the sentence. The same read thus: “15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which, the Court may keep in mind. 16. In the instant case, the incident took place before more than fifteen years; the parties are residing in one and the same village and they are also relatives. The appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of commission of crime. It was his first offence. After conviction, the petitioner was taken into custody. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, he was enlarged on bail but, after the decision of the High Court, he again surrendered and is in jail at present. Though he had applied for bail, the prayer was not granted and he is not released on bail. Crl. Revision No.630 of 2010 6 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant (Accused No.1) is reduced to the period already undergone.” Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment of the apex court in Ishwar Singh's case (supra), it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners shall be reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, fine imposed, shall remain intact. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 23.7.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No