Criminal Revision No. 2155 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No. 2155 of 2002 Date of Decision:07.05.2009 Makhan Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Harpreet S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ravinder Kaur Nihalsinghwala, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused Makhan Singh, Daya Singh, Balwant Singh, Darshan Singh, Hukam Singh and Bakhtaur Singh against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 3.4.2002 rendered by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda whereby she convicted and sentenced the above-mentioned accused as under:- S.No. Name of the Accused Under Sections Sentence 1 Darshan Signh 323 IPC R.I for three months. 325 IPC R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I for 15 days. 148 IPC R.I for three months Criminal Revision No. 2155 of 2002 -2- S.No. Name of the Accused Under Sections Sentence 2 Makhan Singh 325 IPC R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I for 15 days. 323 IPC R.I for three months. 148 IPC R.I for three months. 3 Balwant Singh 325/149 IPC R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I for 15 days. 323 IPC R.I for three months. 148 IPC R.I for three months. 4 Bakhtawar Singh 325/149 IPC R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I for 15 days. 323 IPC R.I for three months. 148 IPC R.I for three months. 5 Hukam Singh 325 IPC R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I for 15 days. 323 IPC R.I for three months. 148 IPC R.I for three months. 6 Daya Singh 325/149 IPC R.I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I for 15 days. 323/149 IPC R.I for three months. 149 IPC R.I for three months. As set up by the prosecution, on 22.5.1997, Rattan Kaur, injured- complainant made statement before Ranjit Singh, ASI in the terms that on 21.5.1997 at about 9:00 A.M., she along with her daughter Satpal Kaur, her mother Kartar Kaur and her mother's sister Piar Kaur widow of Mohinder Singh were proceeding towards fields through Pahi (common passage). They were followed by her husband Mohinder Singh as well as her father Lachhman Singh. When they happened to be three kilometres short of the fields, Makhan Singh, Balwant Singh, Darshan Singh armed with gandasi each, Daya Singh, Kaka Singh, Hukam Singh armed with dang each and Bakhtawar Singh armed with kasauli came and stood in front of them on the Pahi. Makhan Singh by raising lalkara exhorted his co-accused Criminal Revision No. 2155 of 2002 -3- to catch hold of theirs. Hukam Singh delivered a dang blow, which hit on her left leg. She yelled “Killed, Killed.” Meanwhile, Darshan Singh delivered gandasi blow from its reverse side, which landed on her left thigh. Makhan Singh gave gandasi blow from its reverse side, which fell on her left shoulder. She fell down on the ground. Hukam Singh gave blow, which rested on her left ankle. The accused also gave beatings to Satpal Kaur, Kartar Kaur and Piar Kaur. On being raised alarm of “Bachao Bachao”, her father and husband raised lalkara that `be brave and we are coming.” On this, all the accused decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant as well as other injured ladies were removed to Civil Hospital for their treatment. ASI Jeet Singh recorded the statements of Kartar Kaur, Rattan Kaur, Piar Kaur and Satpal Kaur on 22.5.1997. It was on 30.5.1997, that all the accused were put under arrest and the weapons of offence were got recovered from them. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused were charged under Sections 325/323/148 read with Section 149 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Rachhpal Singh, PW2 Dr. K.S. Brar, PW3 Constable Gurbachan Singh, PW4 Rattan Kaur, PW5 Satpal Kaur, PW6 Kartar Kaur, PW7 ASI Ranjit Singh, PW8 Piar Kaur and PW9 ASI Jeet Singh and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. The accused Balwant Singh produced in his defence, EX.DA, copy of the order. Criminal Revision No. 2155 of 2002 -4- After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Makhan Singh, Daya Singh, Balwant Singh, Darshan Singh, Hukam Singh and Bakhtawar Singh as noticed at the outset. It is noteworthy that in consequence of the death of Kala Singh during pendency of the trial, the proceedings abated against him. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/ sentence, they preferred an appeal which met failure in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, they have preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. To begin with Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged with great eloquence that there is inexplicable delay in lodging the FIR as the incident took place at 9:00 A.M on 21.5.1997 though the FIR was lodged on 28.5.1997 at 3:30 P.M. This contention does not find favour with me. As is borne out from Ex.PW9/A, the injured persons were declared unfit to make the statement. This fact is further fortified by Ex.P.29 to Ex.P.36. It was on their being declared fit, their statements were recorded. Rattan Kaur has also testified that the police did not initiate any action. There being inertia on the part of the police, the FIR could not be registered well in time. The complainant party should not be allowed to suffer merely because of sloppiness on the part of the police. Thus, this contention being devoid of any merit is turned down. It has been further emphasised on behalf of the petitioners that the previous Criminal Revision No. 2155 of 2002 -5- suit was subsisting between the parties and on that account, the petitioners have been falsely roped in this case. He has referred to Ex.DA, copy of the order. This document rather goes to show that the petitioners did have the motive to inflict injuries on the person of the complainant party. Rattan Kaur PW has solemnly affirmed that the accused party was bent upon to take forcible possession of their land and it is because of this reason, they caused injuries to them. Her testimony on this count could not be belied or impeached or falsified in any manner. So, the motive stands well established. No other point has been urged or agitated by either counsel. On analysing the entire evidence, it transpires that the same being consistent and credible can be relied upon without any demur. Consequently, conviction is upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this incident being more than 11 years old, the sentence inflicted upon the petitioners be reduced to the already undergone. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1997. As per the custody certificates, each petitioner has undergone 1 month and 7 days of the actual sentence. In re: Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. State N.C.T. Delhi, 2009(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 973 (S.C.), the accused was convicted and sentenced to 15 months' rigorous imprisonment under Food Adulteration Act. The incident was 20 years old. The sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one year). The petitioners while on bail, during pendency of this revision, did not make misuse of this liberty. The complainant party can be compensated in Criminal Revision No. 2155 of 2002 -6- monetary terms. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone. The fine imposed by learned trial Court upon the each petitioner is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- each. The difference of fine shall be deposited by the petitioners in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. On deposit, an amount of Rs.2,000/- shall be disbursed to the injured Piar Kaur and Rattan Kaur each and an amount of Rs.4,000/- shall be disbursed to Kartar Kaur and Satpal Kaur each. The revision of the defaulting petitioner shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The learned trial Court shall send necessary intimation with regards to the non-deposit of difference of fine, if any, to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, who in turn shall take necessary steps to send the defaulting petitioner to the prison. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Successor Court of Ms. Preeti Sukhija, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda as well as the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. May 07, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No