Criminal Revision No. 802 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No. 802 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.08.2009 Nishan Singh & another Petitioners Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. NS Dandiwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. Petitioners Nishan Singh & Baljit Singh had been convicted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC vide judgment dated 25-10-2006. They were sentenced as under :- Nishan Singh Sentence U/S 326 IPC RI for 1 ½ year and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-. U/S 324/34 IPC RI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. U/s 323 IPC RI for 6 months for to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. U/S 323/34 IPC RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one month. Baljit Singh U/S 326/34 IPC RI for 1 ½ year and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-. U/S 324 IPC RI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. U/s 323/34 IPC RI for 6 months for to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. U/S 323 IPC RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one month. However, all the substantive sentences were ordered to run Criminal Revision No. 802 of 2009 2 concurrently. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment of their conviction/sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide judgment dated 5-3-2009 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the Courts below, they preferred 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 the petitioners is maintained, the Court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case, subject to payment of adequate compensation to both the injured persons. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 1.3.2001 at about 10-00 P.M. complainant Kulwant Singh along with his wife Mahant Kaur went to the fields in order to irrigate the same from the tube-well. Both the accused/petitioners armed with Gandasis were present there. Both the accused told them that they would not allow them to irrigate the land. Nishan Singh petitioner started rebuking them. When the complainant tried to stop him from doing so, Nishan Singh raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to the complainant and his wife for irrigating the land. On this Baljit Singh gave a gandasi blow from its sharp side on the head of Mahant Kaur, whereas Nishan Singh gave a gandasi blow from its sharp side on the left eye brow of the complainant. Baljit Singh gave another blow of gandasi on the right elbow of Mahant Kaur from reverse Criminal Revision No. 802 of 2009 3 side. Accused Nishan Singh also gave another gandasi blow from reverse side on the nose of Kulwant Singh. On raising hue and cry, both the accused ran away with their respective weapons. Both the injured were admitted in Civil Hospital Kot Ise Khan, where they were medico legally examined and treated. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They denied the prosecution version. In their defence, they examined one witness Jangir Singh as DW1, who deposed that injuries were not caused to Kulwant Singh and his wife Mahant Kaur by the accused. The complainant falsely implicated the accused in this case due to previous enmity. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against them and sentenced him as already indicated above. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga on 5-3-2009. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the considered view that the the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioners guilty of the charge. The appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal. The conviction of the petitioners thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioners Criminal Revision No. 802 of 2009 4 have already suffered the agony of protracted trial for several years. As per reply by way of affidavit of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, dated 13-7-2009 the petitioners had undergone the sentence of 7 months & 28 days by that time. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence awarded to them by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the amount of fine imposed is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-(thirty five thousand), (i.e. Rs. 17,500/- to be paid by each of them) to be disbursed to both the injured as compensation. The petitioners are directed to deposit the said amount before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case of failure to deposit the fine, the petitioners shall undergo the sentence, as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 24, 2009 'ask'