Criminal Revision No.1630 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1630 of 2004 Date of Decision 11.10.2010 Chhota @ Waseem ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Jarnail Singh Saneta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Out of the three accused Furkan had died during trial, accused Raju was declared proclaimed offender, therefore, appellant-accused Chhota @ Wasim (herein referred as 'the accused') faced trial under Sections 458 and 394 IPC. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 394 and 458 IPC. The appeal, preferred by him was also dismissed. On 30.01.1996, complainant Subhash Chander alongwith his father was present at their shop. At about 10:00 p.m., his father was counting the money whereas he was sitting by his side in the shop. Meanwhile, the accused alongwith two other persons armed with knives came to the shop. Bittu @ Banti, one of the accused, stood on the gate and the others entered the shop and threatened to hand over the money. At this complainant caught Furkan but accused Chhota threatened the complainant Criminal Revision No.1630 of 2004 2 to release him and also inflicted knife blows on the person of his father. Furkan also gave a knife blow on the right hand of the complainant and then all the accused managed to flee. FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. Completion of investigation was followed by a report under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused were charged for the offences under Sections 394 and 458 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined ASI Amar Nath (PW1), Constable Umar Mohammad (PW2), Dr.A.K.Sehgal (PW3), Dr.C.V.Singh (PW4), complainant Subhash Chander (PW5), Krishan Lal (PW6), Head Constable Naresh Kumar (PW7) and Constable Mahender Singh (PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication. The trial ended in conviction. Appeal preferred by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel is with regard to the doubtful identity of the accused. Having pondered over the contention, it sans any merit. The complainant and his father were sitting in the shop. They had not still put off the lights but were winding up to go to house when the accused landed in their shop. They could well identify them. The testimony made by Subhash Chander (PW5) stands corroborated by Krishan Lal (PW6), father of the complainant, who has also discredited the incident in all minute details. They had no enmity against the accused to implicate them falsely in the case. They have withstood the test of cross- Criminal Revision No.1630 of 2004 3 examination and are quite consistent in their statements. Minor discrepancies which do not effect the substratum of the case, are hardly sufficient to throw away the prosecution version. Human memories are likely to fade with the passage of time. They being the stamped witnesses had no reason to name the accused falsely while leaving the real culprits. The ocular version given by Subhash Chander (PW5) as well as his father Krishan Lal (PW6) stands corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr.C.V.Singh (PW4) has proved their MLRs Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B dated 31.01.1996. Farkan and Chhota @ Waseem had also suffered injuries on account of the scuffle and they were also medico legally examined on 02.02.1996 by Dr.A.K.Sehgal (PW3), who proved their MLRs Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively. The accused have failed to explain as to how they received the injuries. The injuries on their person of the same duration go a long way to establish that the accused were the perpetrators of the crime. Both the Courts below have returned the findings of fact making clear observations that these were the accused, who had committed the crime. No such illegality much less irregularity has been pointed out or detected which may be glaring and apparent on the record, warranting interference by this Court at this revisional stage. It is also settled by now that re-appreciation of the evidence at this revisional stage is not permissible. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought some leniency on the quantum of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1996. The petitioner-accused has suffered a lot of agony on account of the pendency of proceedings in the Courts for the last fourteen years and the sword of sentence remained Criminal Revision No.1630 of 2004 4 hanging over his head since then. He has already undergone seven months and fourteen days of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things to take a lenient view in the matter. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.10.2010 mamta-II