IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.270 of 2002 Date of Decision: 17.02.2009 Sher Singh Petitioner Versus State of Haryana Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Bhoop Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Addl.A.G. Haryana for the respondent-State …. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner, vide judgment and order dated 20.5.1999, was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause. He went in appeal, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.1.2002, conviction was affirmed, however, sentence was reduced from four years to three years rigorous imprisonment. Hence, this revision. It is coming out from the records that FIR No.138 was registered against the petitioner on 16.9.1994 on a statement made by Raghunath Criminal Revision No.270 of 2002 2 (PW2), the complainant. Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in paragraph No.2 of its judgment, reads thus:- “Briefly stated, the matrix of the facts culminating into the filing of present prosecution case is that on 15.9.1994 at about 4.00 P.M. in the area of village Kilazafargarh accused had voluntarily caused simple hurt to complainant Raghunath with lathi fitted with an iron patti and also voluntarily caused grievous hurt to said Raghunath complainant with sharp weapon i.e. lathi fitted with an iron patti.” The injured Raghunath was examined by Dr.R.K.Goyal(PW4), who found the following injuries at his person:- “1. An incised wound of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm on the back of the left upper arm. Lower aspect, it bled on cleaning the clots. 2. An incised wound of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the right fore-arm just near to elbow. It bled on cleaning the clots. X-ray was advised. 3. A fresh abrasion of 1 cm x 1 cm on the midline of the back of the chest. Lower aspect. 4. A reddish contusion of 6 cm x 2.5 cm on the back of the left side of the abdomen outer aspect.” Injury No.2 was declared grievous in nature. The investigating officer, SI Jai Kishan (PW6), after completing necessary formalities, presented the final report in Court, for trial. The petitioner was charge sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution Criminal Revision No.270 of 2002 3 produced eight witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to him, which he denied, claimed innocence and false implication. However, he led no evidence in defence. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence found him guilty and he was convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in earlier part of this order. He also failed in appeal. Shri Bhoop Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, by making reference to the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, has vehemently contended that conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner was not justified. However, he has failed to convince this Court that the trial Court has misread any evidence on record or there was some error apparent, on the basis of which, interference can be made in revision, at the instance of the petitioner. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611, have opined that in a criminal revision scope to interfere in judgments passed by the Courts below is very limited. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioner states that occurrence has taken place in the year 1994. The petitioner has faced agony of trial, his appeal was also dismissed and now his revision petition is pending in this Court from the year 2002. In the process, he has suffered a lot financially and mentally as well. Counsel further submits that he is aged Criminal Revision No.270 of 2002 4 about 67 years and suffering from various old age ailments and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, probably, he will die in jail only. Counsel further says that after his conviction in this case, the petitioner has not indulged himself into any other similar crime and now he is leading life of a disciplined citizen. Counsel assures this Court that in future also, he will observe complete discipline and will not give any cause of complaint to the law enforcing agencies. It was brought to the notice of this Court that he has already undergone four months of actual sentence. Counsel also states that independent witness has failed to support case of the prosecution. By stating as above, leniency has been prayed for the petitioner. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Addl.A.G. Haryana. He, by making reference to the statement of the injured, states that conviction and punishment awarded to the petitioner was perfectly justified. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that present is a case, in which, lenient approach deserves to be adopted. It is necessary to give one opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself and contribute towards progress of the society. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, observed as under:- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his Criminal Revision No.270 of 2002 5 action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal 1998 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Criminal Revision No.270 of 2002 6 Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Stae of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh 2002(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600. In that case, in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted, however, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467. Record reveals that the petitioner and the injured are co villagers. With the passage of time, they might have forgotten the sad incident, which had occurred in the year 1994. Presently, they may be living in peace. If at this stage, the petitioner is sent behind the bars, it will result into reviving the old enmity, which will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of judgments mentioned above, conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the already undergone by him. Taking note of the ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372, fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- over and above the fine already paid by him. He is directed to deposit that amount with the trial Court within a period of three months from today. Upon deposit so being made, the trial Court is directed to issue notice to the injured and in case, he is not alive, amount be disbursed to his legal heirs. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Criminal Revision No.270 of 2002 7 With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. 17.02.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge