Criminal Revision No.188 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.188 of 2002 Date of Decision: May 06, 2009 Angrej Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Sidhu,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 2.11.1999 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed qua him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda vide judgment dated 22.1.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on the night of Criminal Revision No.188 of 2002 2 27.3.95 on the receipt of wireless message from police regarding the admission of injured Gurmail Singh in Civil Hospital, Bathinda ASI Jarnail Singh along with other police officials reached there and the doctor declared injured unfit to make statement. Then, on 28.3.95 after obtaining the opinion from the doctor regarding his fitness to make statement, statement of Gurmail Singh was recorded, which reads, in brief, that on the previous night, he along with his family was in his house when at about 8 P.M. Jagsir Singh alias Bhola Singh called him from outside. He came outside. The electric bulb was on in the court- yard. Bhag Singh armed with gandasa, Angrej Singh alias Gori armed with Kirpan were standing. On seeing him Bhag Singh raised an alarm, catch hold him and on this Jagsir Singh pulled him in the street by holding his right arm. They grappled with each other. Angrej Singh gave blow with his kirpan and he raised his left arm in defence and the wrist joint received the kirpan blow. Kartar Kaur, his mother and Jaskaran Kaur his wife came at the spot on hearing the noise. Nasib Kaur wife of Bhag Singh also reached there. Bhag Singh gave a gandasa blow but the complainant stepped backward. Nasib Kaur also suffered injury at her head in the scuffle. Jaskaran Kaur and Kartar Kaur raised cries of “Marta Marta”, upon which the accused ran way from the spot with their respective weapons. Some nighbourers also gathered there on hearing the noise. Angresj Singh alias Gori is practising occulet whereas complainant is the member of Tarksheel (Loginal) society. The complainant distributes books Criminal Revision No.188 of 2002 3 of said society against them, and that is why the appellants- accused have caused him injury. 3. Injured was removed to hospital by Baldev Singh. ASI after making his endorsement on the statement, sent the same to the police station for registration of case, upon which the case was registered against the appellants-accused. ASI took into possession blood stained clothes of Gurmail Singh and Nasib Kaur, visited the spot, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the rough site plan and also took into possession blood stained earth from the spot. Appellants-accused were arrested. Kirpan was recovered from Angrej Singh in view of statement suffered by him u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Gandasa was recovered from Bhag Singh. After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 326 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that Nasib Kaur, mother of the petitioner had also suffered an injury on her head in the occurrence. Petitioner is not the previous convict and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1995. Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 326 Criminal Revision No.188 of 2002 4 IPC is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of. (Sabina) Judge May 06, 2009 arya