IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision Petition No.1445 of 1999 Date of Decision: 7.9.2009 Sucha Singh and another. ....... Petitioners through Shri K.S.Cheema, Advocate. Versus The State of Punjab. ....... Respondent through Shri B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against judgment dated 9.11.1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter described as `the appellate Court') whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.1.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were upheld. In a case arising out of F.I.R.No.57 dated 11.6.1994 registered at Police Station, Hariana under Sections 148, 326, 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short, `the I.P.C.'), the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under:- “ Petitioner-Kashmir Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a Crl.Revision Petition No.1445 of 1999 -2- .... period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for an offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. Petitioner-Sucha Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for an offence under Section 326/34 of the I.P.C.” However, the other co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Karam Chand, Mara alias Mohinder Singh and Som Nath were acquitted of the offences alleged against them. The petitioners were also not found guilty of the charges under Sections 148 and 506 of the I.P.C. The appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment, upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioners and dismissed their appeal Crl.Revision Petition No.1445 of 1999 -3- .... resulting in the filing of the instant petition. At the out-set, learned counsel for the petitioners contended with reference to the evidence on record that only role attributed to petitioner no.1-Sucha Singh is that he had raised a `lalkara' and no other overt act has been assigned to him. He, thus, contended that his case is distinct from that of petitioner no.2-Kashmir Singh regarding whom he would not make submissions in detail. In so far as petitioner-Sucha Singh is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his case is also to be evaluated in view of the fact that three other persons, who were allegedly accompanying him, were acquitted by the trial Court and that since he was a Sarpanch of the Village Gram Panchayat for a number of years, the possibility of his false implication cannot be ruled out. I have thoughtfully considered contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record. In so far as the case of petitioner-Sucha Singh is concerned, it is evident from the evidence on record that petitioner-Sucha Singh was attributed only a `lalkara'. No other role was assigned to him. The statement of injured- Swaran Singh (PW3) also shows that Sucha Singh had exhorted that Lambardar,i.e., PW3 was the root cause of the trouble and, therefore, he should not be spared upon which petitioner-Kashmir Singh went to his haveli and brought his Kirpan and tried to strike him and in order to save himself, he had raised his left hand as a result of which he sustained injury over his left arm. PW4-Manjit Singh has also deposed to the same effect. The injured-complainant is a Lambardar of the village and as has been Crl.Revision Petition No.1445 of 1999 -4- .... projected before this Court, petitioner-Sucha Singh was the Sarpanch of the village for a number of years and, therefore, the possibility of some factional rivalry cannot be ruled out, which may have the cause of his involvement in the instant case as no other overt act has been attributed to him and there is also no further evidence against him. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the case against petitioner-Sucha Singh has not been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and, therefore, I accept his petition and direct his acquittal by giving him the benefit of doubt. In so far as the case of petitioner-Kashmir Singh, he has been attributed specific role in causing injuries to the injured-complainant. The testimony of PW3 and PW4 is consistent on this score. The ocular evidence has also been supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, he cannot escape the rigour of conviction. Therefore, no infirmity can be found in the impugned judgment qua him and his petition deserves to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1994 and petitioner-Kashmir Singh has suffered the agony of criminal proceedings for the last fifteen years and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail at this stage. He, therefore, prayed for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Having considered the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the backdrop of the observations made by this Court Kharak Singh and others Versus State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 766 (P&H); Sadhu Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) Crl.Revision Petition No.1445 of 1999 -5- .... 108 (P&H); Moti Sagar and others Versus State of Haryana and another, 2004(3) RCR (Criminal) 519 (P&H) and Darshan Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 212 (P&H) and by the Supreme Court in Radhey Sham Versus State of U.P., 2009(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 217 (S.C.) and noticing the fact that it was a sudden fight which had flared up without any pre-meditative intent, this revision petition is disposed of qua petitioner- Kashmir Singh in the following terms:- 1. The conviction of petitioner-Kashmir Singh will remain intact; 2. The sentence awarded to him by the trial and as affirmed by the appellate Court is reduced to that of already undergone. However, he shall pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the injured-complainant. 3. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be deposited by petitioner-Kashmir Singh within a period of three months from today, which shall be paid to the injured-complainant after due notice and verification. 4. If petitioner-Kashmir Singh fails to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated period, the sentence as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court shall stand revived and he shall be required to serve the remaining sentence. September 7,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge