Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. Date of decision:25.9.2008. Mohan Lal and another. ..Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Divyojot Singh and Mr. Rajdeep Singh Cheema Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rahul Vats Advocate and Mr. Roopam Jain, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG Haryana. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. The petitioners are aggrieved against the judgment dated 24.2.2001 passed by Shri C.B.Jaglian, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby he reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners under Section 325 IPC by Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. -2- the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa from 2-1/2 years to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentence awarded to them under Section 323 IPC was reduced from one year to three months. The sentence of fine was, however maintained. However, he acquitted Radha Krishan,accused. Shri H.S.Dahiya, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, vide judgment dated 29.10.1998 convicted the petitioners under Sections 323 and 325 IPC and vide separate order dated 31.10.1998, he sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for four months under Section 325 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Concisely, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 4.1.1991, Surender Kumar, complainant and his father Nand Ram were standing in front of their Nohra when Mohan Lal accused and his sons Rajinder Kumar and Radha Krishan were constructing a wall in the thoroughfare. Nand Ram went to them and asked them not to obstruct the passage by constructing a wall. This infuriated Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. -3- all the accused who declared that the wall will be constructed in the passage itself and nobody can stop them from doing so. The complainant's father Nand Ram told the accused that their excesses will not be tolerated. At this stage, Radha Krishan accused caught hold of Nand Ram by his hair and made him fall on the ground. The complainant raised an alarm. On hearing the same, Om Parkash and Banwari came to the spot. Within their view, Radha Krishan picked up a brick bat and dealt a blow on the nose of Nand Ram. Mohan Lal and Rajinder Kumar accused had already kept their Gandasis near the heap of bricks. Mohan Lal dealt a Gandasi blow on the right jaw of Nand Ram who fell down with his face downward. Rajinder Kumar accused dealt a blow to Nand Ram on his right shoulder from the reverse side of Gandasi. The complainant, with the help of Om Parkash and Banwari rescued his father. The occurrence took place between 9.30 and 10.00 AM. As a result of the injuries, the complainant's father became unconscious. He was taken in a jeep to Civil Hospital, Rania, where he was given first aid and admitted. On the same night, at about 10.00 P.M, Nand Ram, injured was referred to General Hospital, Sirsa. As Nand Ram was not able to speak because of injury of jaw, the police recorded the statement of Surender Kumar on 5.1.1991 leading to the registration of FIR under Sections Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. -4- 323/324/34 IPC. After X-ray examination, the doctor found a fracture of nasal bone and right mandible. Then, the offence under Sections 326/325 IPC were added. After completion of investigation, the police challaned all the three accused. The accused were accordingly charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Nand Ram, injured, PW-2 Surender Kumar, complainant and eye witness, PW-3 Om Parkash, eye witness, PW-4 Sardul Singh, a witness of recovery of weapons, PW-5 HC Randhir Singh and PW- 6 Dr. S.L.Aggarwal. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the petitioners denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Rajinder Kumar, petitioner pleaded that the wall of his house had fallen down and they were constructing a new wall which was being obstructed by Nand Ram, who had encroached upon a portion of the street belonging to the panchayat. He further pleaded that Nand Ram gave him a Gandasi blow on his thumb and in his self defence, he caused injuries to Nand Ram. The other accused pleaded that they were not present at the time of occurrence. Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. -5- The accused examined Dharam Pal, Reader and Hardev Singh, Kanungo in their defence. Hardev Singh, Kanungo proved his report Exhibit DX which was given by him after demarcation of the land of Khasra Nos. 361, 363, 364 and 365. According to his report, Nand Ram was found to have encroached upon three Marlas of land in front of land of Khasra Nos.361 and 363. After the appraisal of entire evidence and hearing arguments, Shri H.S.Dahiya, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, convicted and sentenced the petitioners, vide judgment/order dated 29.10.1998/31.10.1998,as noticed earlier. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-said judgment/order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of by Shri C.B.Jaglian, the then Additional Sessions Judge, as mentioned in the earlier part of judgment. Faced with the impeccable judgments of the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not make any serious endeavour to challenge the conviction of the petitioners. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and find the same to be faultless. It is based on convincing and reliable evidence and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioners is confirmed. Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. -6- So far the sentence part of the judgment is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1991 and since then the petitioners are facing protracted trial; that the petitioners have already undergone more than two months of actual sentence out of sentence of one year; that none of the petitioners had any criminal bent of mind and that petitioners were released on bail on 16.4.2001 and now it will be inequitable to direct them to undergo actual sentence at this stage. He has further contended that petitioner Mohan Lal is suffering from serious ailment of cancer. He, has, therefore, prayed that the sentence of the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. The said prayer of the counsel for the petitioners has been opposed by the learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant. I have carefully examined the submissions of counsel for the parties. The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners carry weight. As already noticed above, Mohan Lal is afflicted with serious disease of cancer. Moreover, the alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 1991 and since then the petitioners are undergoing the agony of trial. In addition, petitioners have already undergone incarceration of more than two Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. -7- months out of actual sentence of one year. Taking all these factors into consideration, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.12,000/-. On realization of the said amount, the same will be paid to Nand Lal, injured as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. But in default of payment of fine, the petitioners will undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. This Criminal Revision is disposed of in the manner indicated above. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for strict compliance. September 25,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge Criminal Revision No.468 of 2001. -8-