IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 941 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 23,2009 Chaheru Ram and others ........................................................Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ........................................................................ Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. M.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioners have impugned the judgment dated 21.4.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, and the judgment dated 13.3.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which they have been convicted under Sections 326/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. They have also been convicted under Sections 324/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 323 IPC they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 4.11.1990 the [ 2 ] Crl. Rev. No. 941 of 2002 complainant Hans Raj went to the shop of the accused Hans Raj @ Titi to purchase a bundle of Biris. There he found Chaheru Ram and his three sons namely Hans Raj @ Titi, Tarsem Lal @ Sema and Sunni Ram present there. He demanded a bundle of Biris from the accused Hans Raj @ Titi who did not give him the Biris as the complainant owed a sum of Rs.1500/- to the accused Hans Raj. The complainant stated that as his financial position is tight, therefore, he would re-pay the amount in the near future but this annoyed the accused Hans Raj @ Titi and he retorted that they are the sons of Chaheru Ram and they know how to recover the amount. Thereafter, Chaheru Ram came out of the shop and raised a lalkara that the complainant should be taught a lesson for not making the payment of the amount due. On hearing the noise, the younger brother of the complainant namely Karan Singh also rushed near the place of occurrence. Thereafter Tarsem Lal @ Sema gave a Kirpan blow, Hans Raj @ Titi gave a Daggar blow and Sunni Ram gave a Dang blow on the complainant. Chaheru Ram was empty handed. The accused Hans Raj @ Titi gave two Daggar blows on the person of Karan Singh, brother of Hans Raj, complainant, which hit on the little finger of his left hand and the index finger of the left hand. Sunni Ram also gave Dang blows on the person of Karan Singh which hit on his head on the left side and the other on the lip and right hand. The complainant side raised raula `Maar Ditta Maar Ditta'. Upon this, various other persons belonged to the family of the complainant came to the spot and on seeing them the accused ran away. The trial Court by placing reliance on the statement made by PW1 Hans Raj, complainant, which was supported by Karan Singh and [ 3 ] Crl. Rev. No. 941 of 2002 other witnesses as well as by placing reliance on the medico-legal report convicted the accused in the manner stated in the opening paragraph. The appeal filed by them was also dismissed. Mr. Dhillon, counsel for the petitioners, submits that out the four accused, Chaheru Ram, Tarsem Lal and Hans Raj have died during the pendency of the appeal and only accused Sunni Lal is left. He has further submitted that as far as Sunni Lal is concerned, he is alleged to have given Dang blows to Karan Singh, brother of the complainant, on the left side of his head, lip and right hand. All the injuries were simple in nature. He is also alleged to have attributed injuries to the ladies who had come to the rescue of the complainant. The injuries on the ladies were also simple in nature. Learned counsel submits that the accused Sunni Lal has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 326 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel that he had not caused any grievous injury to any of the injured. Mr. Dhillon has further submitted that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment as the accused Hans Raj did not sell Biris to the complainant on account of the fact that the complainant owed a sum of Rs.1500/- to the accused Hans Raj. Learned counsel further submits that it was not a pre-planned occurrence and that the same hatched on the spur of the moment and, therefore, there was no common intention of the petitioner Sunni Lal with the other accused. Learned counsel submits that if Section 326 IPC is done away with than the conviction of the petitioner can be under Section 34 IPC for which six months RI has been awarded, out of which he has already undergone 3-1/2 months. [ 4 ] Crl. Rev. No. 941 of 2002 The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners have been controverted by the counsel for the respondent who submits that both the Courts have concurrently found that all the four accused had given blows to the complainant and his family members and that no reduction in sentence of Sunni Lal is called for. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment as the complainant was not sold a bundle of Biris by the accused Hans Raj @ Titi and because of the insistence of the complainant the incident flared up which infuriated the accused who caused the injuries in the manner stated above. It was clear from the records that there was no pre- arrangement of minds of the accused and, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner Sunni Lal under Section 326/34 IPC is set aside. However, it has come in evidence that Sunni Lal did cause injuries to Karan Singh on his head, lip and right hand and the injuries were simple in nature. He had also caused injuries to some lady members of the complainant side which were also simple in nature, therefore, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner Sunni Lal under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the present revision abates as three accused have died during the pendency of the appeal. The conviction of Sunni Lal under Section 323/324 IPC is upheld. However, he has already undergone a period of 3-1/2 months of substantive sentence, therefore, the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by him. The fine, if not deposited , shall be deposited by the accused within a period of three months failing which he shall undergo the punishment as mentioned in [ 5 ] Crl. Rev. No. 941 of 2002 the default clause. The revision petition is partly allowed. 23.4.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE