Criminal Revision 1280 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1280 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 23, 2009 Prem Singh etc. ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sandeep Mann,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted under Sections 325,323,325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 10.5.2001 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Balachur. Vide order of even date, petitioner-Tari alias Avtar Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325 IPC, Petitioners-Prem Singh, Ravinder Singh, Kewal @ Mintoo were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 325/34 IPC and Prem Singh, Bablu Minu and Tari were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 323 IPC.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was Criminal Revision 1280 of 2002 2 dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr vide judgment dated 2.7.2002. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “ The facts which culminated into the trial of the appellants are that on 20.7.1999, Gurbax Ram injured-complainant made statement before Mohinder Singh ASI in the terms that he is resident of village Karawar and serving in the Army. He is engaged in protracted litigation with accused Prem Singh regarding a street and that case is still pending in the court of SDJM Balachaur. On 28.7.1999, he and his father Ram Kishan were plastering the floor in their house and at about 5 p.m., Prem Singh accused came there and asked the complainant to stop the plastering work. Ram Kishan father of the complainant told the accused that they will stop the work as and when the case is decided in his (Prem Singh's ) favour and that by merely levelling the floor, no harm would be caused to the accused. Prem Singh accused went back and after a short interval, he along with his sons, namely, Bablu started hurling bricks towrds Gurbux Singh and Ram Kishan, which hit him (Gurbux Ram complainant) which was hurled by accurd Prem Singh. Thereafter, Bablu accused threw another brick on Gurbux Ram which fell on the wrist of left arm. Another brick hurled by accused Prem Singh fell on the right leg of Gurbux Ram. Accused Bably threw another brickbat,hitting on the right shoulder of Gurbux Ram. In the meantime, accused Mintu and Tari also came on the rooftop of Criminal Revision 1280 of 2002 3 the house and joined their co-accused Prem Singh and Bablu in throwing the brick bats on him (Gurbux Sngh) and Ram Kishan. The brick bat thrown by Taru hit Ram Kishan near his left eye. Bablu hit another brickbat blow upon Ram Kishan, which hit him on his left side of chest. Tari hurled another brickbat, hitting Ram Kishan on his left armpit. They raised alarm `mar ditta.. mar ditta' which attracted many persons at the spot and the accused then fled away. The injured were removed to Civil hospital, Balachaur by Simru Ram, where they were medico-legally examined. On the basis of this statement, formal FIR was registered and investigation started. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, recorded statements of witnesses, prepared rough site plan arrested the accused and after completion of the investigation ,they were challand. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 325,323,325/34 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners have undergone more than three months of actual sentence after conviction. Petitioners are not the previous convict. Injury had not been attributed on the vital part of the body. Injury under Section 325 IPC is above the elbow. Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Criminal Revision 1280 of 2002 4 Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 325,323,325/34 IPC is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them Petition stands disposed of. (Sabina) Judge April 23, 2009 arya