Crl. Rev. No. 1794 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1794 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.12.2009 Surjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Geeta Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Sections 451, 354, 427 IPC. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 30th January, 2003, when ASI Shamsher Singh alongwith other police officials was present at the turn of village Tarkhan Majra in connection with patrolling, complainant Kuljit Kaur of that village got recorded her statement Ex. PA to the effect that her husband Sadhu Singh has four brothers, namely, Bahadur Singh, Gurdas Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Surjit Singh. Her father-in-law during his life time partitioned his house among his five sons and they have been residing in their separate houses which are adjoining to each other. Sadhu Singh, husband of complainant is running a tractor workshop at GT Road Sirhind. On 29th Crl. Rev. No. 1794 of 2009 2 January, 2003, her husband went to the court to attend hearing of a case. At about 10.30 AM, Surjit Singh entered her house armed with an iron hammer. He started demolishing wall of latrine. The complainant and her elder daughter Karamjit Kaur tried to stop him, but he did not stop. He also started demolishing the other wall and when the complainant tried to stop him, he pushed her and also tore her clothes. The complainant and her daughter raised noise, on which Surjit Singh ran away from there with hammer. On arrival of her husband, she narrated the whole story to him. They also sent message to their relatives. Again on 30th January, 2003 at about 9.00 AM her husband and children were present when Surjit Singh came and started demolishing the latrine and wall of the stairs by pushing, which had fallen down. They all raised noise. Then the petitioner left the spot saying that they may do whatever they wanted. The motive behind the occurrence is that there is a civil litigation pending between the complainant and her brother-in- law and the accused obstructed them forcibly from pursuing that litigation. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioner was submitted before the competent court of jurisdiction. Prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The accused also produced three witnesses in his defence. The learned trial court after appraising the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 451, 354 & 427 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 451 IPC, to Crl. Rev. No. 1794 of 2009 3 undergo RI for one year under Section 354 IPC and further to undergo RI for six months under Section 427 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Fatehgarh Sahib. Aggrieved against the judgments of the courts below, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has stated that in view of the findings returned by the trial court, he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and will confine his arguments regarding reduction in sentence only. He stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is a first offender and is the only bread earner having large family. Therefore, he prays that his sentence be reduced. Learned counsel for the State submits that in case the conviction of the petitioner is maintained, he shall have no objection to reduction of sentence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On a perusal of the judgment, I am of the considered view that the courts below have correctly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the offence alleged against him. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Taking into account totality of circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is stated to be the first offender and he has to support Crl. Rev. No. 1794 of 2009 4 his family, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner shall be reduced to six months but sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the complainant. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 22, 2009 'rajpal'