Criminal Revision No. 772 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 772 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8.3.2010 Mai Chand and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ravish Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Mai Chand, his two sons namely Hans Raj alias Hansu and Bhira, two daughters namely Rani and Meena, and daughter-in-law Roshni wife of Bhira, have preferred the present revision petition. They along with Balbir, another son of Mai Chand, were named as accused in case FIR No. 98 dated 17.4.1994, registered at Police Station Narnaund, under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. Balbir had died and proceedings were dropped against him by the trial Court on 26.11.1998. Bhira, his wife Roshni, Rani and Meena, were found innocent and placed in column No.2 who were subsequently summoned by the trial Court after invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. All the six persons were found guilty for an offence under Section 323 read with section 34 IPC and Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to Criminal Revision No. 772 of 2008 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, for an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, for an offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Since the fine was paid, no sentence in default was imposed. From the side of complainant, Rajbir had suffered two simple injuries, his wife Darshana had suffered six simple injuries and Dhan Kaur, mother of Rajbir, had suffered four injuries. Injury No.1 on the person of Dhan Kaur was a lacerated wound on left knee joint in front and its size was 2.5 x 1 cm. This injury had caused fracture of left patella and was declared grievous. An FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement Ex.PA made by injured Rajbir to Partap Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, at Primary Health Center, Bass. The statement was sent through a ruqa to the Police Station and on the basis thereof, a formal FIR was registered. Rajbir had some dispute over the possession of shamlat land with Mai Chand. On 17.4.1994 at about 7/8.00 A.M., Rajbir along with his mother Dhan Kaur and wife Darshana, had gone to the disputed plot. It is alleged that the family of Mai Chand, armed with blunt weapons, was already present there. They had caused injuries to Rajbir, his mother Dhan Kaur and his wife Darshana. In the occurrence, all the injuries were caused with blunt weapons. Balbir, deceased accused, had given a jelly blow like a lathi on the left knee of Dhan Kaur and this injury was declared as grievous. The author of this injury had expired. Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sudhir Criminal Revision No. 772 of 2008 3 Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that in view of the deposition of injured PW.1 Rajbir, and PW.9 Darshana, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction. It is stated that both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of these two witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1994 and a period of more than 15 years has already elapsed. He further submitted that the petitioners are still in the corridors of the Courts and have suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. It is further submitted that the author of the injury on the knee of Dhan Kaur had already expired and all the family members of Mai Chand were named as accused. It is further submitted that after the occurrence, another incident took place in which Balbir and Dhan Kaur had died. Thus, in these circumstances, benefit of probation cannot be granted to the petitioners. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners have suffered a mental pain and agony of protracted trial, this Court is of the view that some reduction can be granted in the sentence. Hence, sentence awarded to the petitioners for an offence under Section 325 IPC is reduced from two years to eight months rigorous imprisonment. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 8, 2010 “DK”