Crl. Revision No. 756 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 756 of 2005 Date of decision: February 7, 2011 Pritam Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioners/accused Pritam Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Hardev Singh and Malkiat Singh, having been convicted for the offences under Sections 379 and 447 IPC by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, vide judgment dated 19.11.2003 and having lost in the appeal preferred against that conviction and sentence, have come up with the present criminal revision, challenging that conviction and sentence. The criminal machinery was set in motion by Gurbachan Singh- complainant by moving an application Ex. PW3/A before the SSP, Moga. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land and both of them were claiming to be in possession thereof. It was narrated by the complainant in the application that on 21.9.1997, the accused criminally trespassed into the agricultural land and dishonestly removed the crops of Crl. Revision No. 756 of 2005 2 the value of ` 48,000/-. On the basis of that, FIR PW7/D was registered and the investigation was conducted by Surjit Singh ASI, who went to the place of occurrence and after inspecting the same prepared the rough site plan Ex. PW7/A with correct margin notes. He also took into possession one jeep bearing registration No. PAG 493, alongwith its registration certificate, vide memo Ex. PW7/B and one tractor-trolley bearing registration No. PUW 4883, and registration certificate thereof, vide memo Ex. PW7/C, which were used in the commission of the offence for removing the crops. He also collected the revenue record consisting of jamabandi for the year 1993-1994 Ex. PW6/A, khasra girdawari for the year 1996-1997 Ex. PW6/B, khasra girdawari for the year 1996-1997 and 1999-2000 Exs. P8 and P.9 respectively, order dated 15.11.2000 for the correction of khasra girdawari Ex. P.7, report entered in the roznamcha of the Patwari dated 16.10.1996 Ex. PW6/C and the copies of the judgment/order passed by the civil court dated 23.1.1998 Ex. P.3 dated 19.12.1998 Ex. P.4 and the decree sheet dated 19.12.1998 Ex. P.5. The trial court found prima facie case against the accused under Sections 379 and 447 IPC and they were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The documents and the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation were proved in the court by examining a number of witnesses. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the accused were examined by the trial court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their false implication. They stated that civil Crl. Revision No. 756 of 2005 3 litigation was going on between them and the complainant party and that they were coming in possession of the land in dispute from the very beginning. After they were called upon to enter on their defence, they examined Hari Singh (DW-1) in their defence. After going through the evidence and hearing Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 447 and 379 IPC and sentenced them as under:- 1 Pritam Singh (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 379 IPC and to pay fine of ` 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under section 447 IPC. 2 Sukhdev Singh (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 379 IPC and to pay fine of ` 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under section 447 IPC. 3 Hardev Singh (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 379 IPC and to pay fine of ` 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under section 447 IPC. 4 Malkiat Singh (i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 379 IPC and to pay fine of ` 200/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under section 447 IPC. The accused preferred an appeal in which they moved an application for producing additional evidence, which was allowed. In their additional evidence they proved on record certified copy of order dated 26.8.2004 Ex. DA, Khasra girdawari for the Kharif 2004 Ex. DB and order Crl. Revision No. 756 of 2005 4 dated 14.10.2004 Ex. DC. However, the appellate court did not find any illegality in the order of the trial court and as a consequence thereof dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence of the accused. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned defence counsel tried to assail the conviction of the accused recorded by the trial court by referring to the orders passed by the revenue authorities holding that they used to be in possession of the land in dispute. He was confronted with the orders and judgments passed by the civil court in favour of the complainant party. The civil court held the complainant party in possession of the land in dispute. The findings, so recorded by the civil court, were binding on the criminal court and the finding recorded by the revenue court is not so binding on the criminal court. Moreover, those findings of the revenue courts were recorded after the decision of the case. Appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, is permissible only when the findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court are found to be totally perverse or illegal or based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence. Learned counsel for the accused has not been able to satisfy this court that the findings so recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court are perverse or illegal. There is no misreading of evidence, nor it can be said to be a case in which any such evidence has been ignored by those courts. Faced with that situation, learned counsel for the accused challenged the sentence of the accused so recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He submitted that against the sentence of one year awarded to the accused under Section 379 IPC, they have already Crl. Revision No. 756 of 2005 5 undergone a period of one month and seven days, which fact has not been denied by the learned State counsel. It has also been submitted that Malkiat Singh at the time of the occurrence was 77 years old and at present is already more than 81 years of age. The accused have stood protracted trial for a number of years and the interest of justice would be served in case the sentence of one year of imprisonment so imposed against them under Section 379 IPC is reduced to the sentence already undergone, in case the complainant party is suitably compensated for the damages caused to him. According to the complainant, the accused had removed the crops of value of ` 48000/-. While making statement in the court that fact was supported by the complainant and his deposition to that effect was never challenged during his cross-examination. Accordingly, the sentence so imposed upon the petitioners/accused under Section 447 IPC is maintained, whereas the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them under Section 379 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. They are directed to pay compensation of ` 48000/- to the complainant within a period of two months. This amount shall be paid by the accused jointly and severally. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The records be returned to the trial court. February 7, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE