Crl. Revision No.2082 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2082 of 2004 Date of Decision: March 16, 2010 Pale Ram and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Y.P. Malik, DAG, Haryana. SABINA, J. The petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 323, 325/34 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sonepat vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2003.Vide the order of the even date the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 323/34 I.P.C. each. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.400/- under Section 325/34 I.P.C. each. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred appeal and the same was partly allowed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 05.10.2004 with the modification that the sentence of two years was reduced to one year under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, the present petition. Crl. Revision No.2082 of 2004 2 The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- "On 10.09.1999 complainant Dharambir Singh got the case registered against accused Pale Ram etc. for the offence under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC with the averments that, “ On 9.9.1999 at about 8.00 p.m. he, his brother Sunil and father Ishwar Singh were present in the retiring room (Baithak) of their house while the house of Pale Ram accused is also situated near their Baithak. At that time, accused Pale Ram came in front of their Baithak armed with Lathi and started to give abuses to them (complainant party) and on this complainant came out and asked Pale Ram for not to give abuses to them. But, he did not bother and he gave one blow of Lathi to complainant's brother Sunil on his head. Meanwhile other co-accused namely Surender, Satbir and Joginder also came there armed with Lathis. Accused Joginder gave blow of Lathi on his right hand while Satbir accused gave Lathi blow on his head. Accused Surender gave Lathi blow on his right shoulder and he gave another Lathi blow on finger of his left hand. Then Pale Ram accused gave one another Lathi blow on his waist. Then accused Surender gave one blow of Lathi to Sunil on his left hand. But meanwhile his wife Sarla came there for giving meals to his father and at that time Satbir accused also gave Lathi blow to his wife on her left hand. While Surender accused gave blow of Lathi to her on right Crl. Revision No.2082 of 2004 3 shoulder. Thus after raising rescue calls, some other persons namely Jasbir, Dilbagh and Ram Chander also came there who rescued the complainant, his brother and wife from the grip of the accused.” thus on the statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/A the case was registered and it was taken into hands for investigation by the police. IO recorded the statements of the witnesses, also prepared the rough site plan and injured were also got medicolegally examined. In this way, after completion of usual formalities of investigation, the police challaned all the above named accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323,325 read with Section 34 of IPC.” Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323, 325/34 I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner Pale Ram is suffering from epilepsy, whereas petitioner Satbir has been paralized as he had met with a motor vehicle accident. Petitioner Surender Singh was only 18 years old, whereas petitioner Joginder Singh was only 20 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1999 and the petitioners are facing criminal proceedings since then. Petitioners have undergone three and half months of actual sentence and are not involved in any other criminal case. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in the cross case the matter was compromised and the complaint was got dismissed as withdrawn. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to already Crl. Revision No.2082 of 2004 4 undergone by them. Fine has already been deposited by the petitioners. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners to already undergone by them. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323, 325/34 I.P.C. is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) March 16, 2010 JUDGE Anand