Criminal Revision No.623 of 2001. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.623 of 2001. Date of decision:3.9.2008. Hari Singh and another. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Ram Chander Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG Haryana. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. This is a Criminal Revision against the judgment dated 3.4.2001 passed by Shri R.S.Baswana, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which the appeal preferred by the revisionists against the judgment dated 12.4.1999 delivered by Shri Mahender Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal was partly accepted and the sentence was reduced to one year from two Criminal Revision No.623 of 2001. -2- years under Section 326/34 IPC. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 5.8.1987, on receiving a ruqqa from the doctor pertaining to injured Fateh Singh son of Saiya Ram, resident of Prem Khera, ASI Mohar Singh reached General Hospital, Karnal and recorded the statement of injured Fateh Singh wherein he stated that he was an agriculturist by profession. His elder brother Prithi Singh was unanimously elected as Sarpanch of the village. So, due to jealousy, the family of Jassa was not happy. About three months prior to the occurrence, all the accused called his brother Prithi Singh with bad names and also gave beatings to him. On that day, at about 7-00 PM, he along with his two guests Multan Singh, resident of Bastali and Bir Singh resident of Chor Karsa, was returning to his house after visiting village pond. He had to give Rs.20/- to Jaipal son of Ram Sarup. On reaching in front of the house of said Jaipal, he raised a voice to call him and finding that he was not present, he sat on the cot lying in front of the house, while both his companions indulged in talks standing at some distance. In the meantime, accused Hari Singh armed with a Gandasi and remaining accused armed with Lathis came there. Accused Hari Singh gave blows of Gandasi on his nose, right side of lips and index finger of his left hand. Accused Davinder and Chiman Ram Criminal Revision No.623 of 2001. -3- gave Lathi blows. Seeing Multan Singh and Bir Singh coming, the accused fled away with their weapons. Said Multan Singh and Bir Singh brought him to his house from where he was taken to PHC, Nissing by his brother Birbal. The doctor after giving him first aid referred him to General Hospital, Karnal where his statement was recorded. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. The accused were charged sheeted under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW-1 Fateh Singh, PW-2 Multan Singh, PW-3 Chander Ram, PW- 4 ASI Mohar Singh, PW-5 Dr. Surinder Katyal, PW-6 Bir Singh and PW-7 Dr. R.M.Khera. The prosecution closed its evidence after tendering certain documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the entire incriminating evidence was put to them. They denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Jaipal, DW-2, Hari Singh, DW-3 Pala Ram and DW-4 Krishan and thereafter Criminal Revision No.623 of 2001. -4- they closed their defence evidence. The learned trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC and sentenced them to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal. A compromise was effected before the Appellate Court but the Appellate Court, keeping in view the fact that the offence was non-compoundable, dismissed the appeal. However, the sentence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC was reduced to one year. The remaining sentence was confirmed. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said judgment, the accused/petitioners have preferred the present Criminal Revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners but has submitted that Criminal Revision No.623 of 2001. -5- the parties have arrived at a compromise which is on the record of the case. The learned Appellate Court has not accepted the same on the ground that the offence is non-compoundable. He has,therefore, prayed that the sentence of the petitioners be reduced to the one already undergone by them. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the record of the case. So far as conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is concerned, the same does not call for any interference. However, keeping in view the compromise and authority in case Kulwinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) Recent Criminal Reports 1052, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. This Criminal Revision is disposed of in the above terms. September 3,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge