Criminal Revision Nos. 1932 and 2011 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh 1. Criminal Revision No. 1932 of 2006 Noor Mohammad and Another ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent AND 2. Criminal Revision No. 2011 of 2006 Jamaluddin and Others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent Date of Decision: 5.12.2011 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Seven persons namely Noor Mohammad, Salim, Jamaluddin, Sardar Khan, Liyakat Ali, Hazar Khan and Abdul were nominated as accused in case FIR No. 68 dated 15.2.1996, registered at Police Station Sadar, Palwal, under Sections 148, 323, 325, 326 and 149 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal, who, vide its judgment dated 2.4.2005, held them guilty for the offence under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. After Criminal Revision Nos. 1932 and 2011 of 2006 2 convicting the petitioners, vide a separate order dated 4.4.2005, the trial Court sentenced them as under:- Name of Accused Under Section Sentence awarded All the accused 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 500 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month each. 323 read with Section 149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ` 500 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month each. 325 read with Section 149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 500 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month each. 326 read with Section 149 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 500 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have preferred three separate appeals and the same were also dismissed by a common judgment by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 29.7.2006. The judgments of both the Courts below have been assailed Criminal Revision Nos. 1932 and 2011 of 2006 3 by all the accused by filing two separate revision petitions in this Court. Criminal Revision No. 1932 of 2006 was filed by Noor Mohammad and Salim, whereas Criminal Revision No. 2011 of 2006 by Jamaluddin, Sardar Khan, Liyakat Ali, Hazar Khan and Abdul. By this common judgment, both the revision petitions shall be decided together. Criminal proceedings, in the present case, were set into motion on the statement Ex.PW.1/A made by PW.1 Rati Khan, on the basis whereof formal FIR Ex.PW.5/K was registered. In his statement, Rati Khan has stated that on 15.2.1996 at about 9.30 P.M. he along with PW.3 Asgar and PW.2 Rukmu was going to Bhanguri. When they reached near the fields of Chand Khan, Asgar handed over his gun to Rukmu and started urinating. Then all the accused came armed with lathis, pharsas and Ballam. They caused injuries to PW.3 Asgar, who had suffered 14 injuries, whereas PW.1 Rati Khan had suffered four injuries. The injuries, on the person of Asgar, were declared as grievous. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence of PW.1 Rati Khan, PW.2 Rukmu and PW.3 Asgar, came to the conclusion that all the accused had participated in the occurrence and had caused injuries to Asgar and Rati Khan. The contentions, raised by the defence counsel, were rejected. The prosecution, besides three injured, had also examined PW.4 Dr. V.K. Aggarwal, who had conducted radiological examination of PW.3 Asgar and PW.5 Ramesh Chand, Assistant Sub Inspector. Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that in the present case, the doctor, who had conducted medicolegal examination of PW.3 Asgar and PW.1 Rati Criminal Revision Nos. 1932 and 2011 of 2006 4 Khan, has not been examined and therefore, conviction of the petitioners cannot be sustained. The solitary argument, raised by learned counsel for the appellants, is liable to be rejected. The medicolegal report of PW.1 Rati Khan has been brought on record as Ex.PA, whereas of PW.3 Asgar is proved on record as Ex.PB, Ex.PC and Ex.PD. A perusal of the order, passed by the trial Court on 7.6.2003, reveals that when the Assistant Prosecutor had tendered into evidence the Medicolegal Legal Reports as Ex.PA to Ex.PD and discharge slip as Ex.PE, no objection was raised by the defence counsel. Furthermore, PW.4 Dr. V.K. Aggarwal has proved on record the fractures suffered by PW.3 Asgar. Therefore, it cannot be said that non-examination of the doctor, who had conducted medicolegal examination of the injured, will entitle the accused to any benefit. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 31.10.2006 when the petitioners were granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was ordered that each of them should pay ` 10,000 as compensation to the injured and in pursuance whereon an amount of ` 70,000 was deposited in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. He has further submitted that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in February 1996 and a period of about 16 years is going to elapse. Therefore, taking into consideration the sufferance of protracted trial and the amount deposited by the petitioners, their sentence may be reduced to that of already undergone. He has further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any other offence before or after the present occurrence. Criminal Revision Nos. 1932 and 2011 of 2006 5 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, advanced by learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of evidence of PW.4 Dr. V.K. Aggarwal reveals that PW.3 Asgar had suffered fracture of right leg, fracture of fibula of left leg, fractures of both bones of left forearm, fracture of fifth metacarpal and middle phalanx of middle finger of left hand,fracture of lower ulna, fourth and fracture of fourth and fifth metacarpal of right hand. A number of fractures suffered by PW.3 Asgar shows that all the accused wanted to give sound thrashing to the injured. He had suffered 14 injuries. Thus, the alternate prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners that sentence of the petitioners may be reduced to that of already undergone is rejected. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, will not tread on the path of re-appreciation and do re-appraisal of the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity and illegality in the judgments, rendered by both the Courts below, except that the solitary evidence of PW.4 Dr. V.K. Aggarwal cannot be relied unless the doctor who carried medicolegal examination come forward to depose. In the present case, medical evidence corroborates ocular version However, taking into consideration the age, sufferance of protracted trial and their antecedents, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment, awarded upon the petitioners for the offence under Sections 148, 326 and 325 IPC, is reduced to that of one year each. However, the sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact. Criminal Revision Nos. 1932 and 2011 of 2006 6 Subject to the modifications in the sentence, awarded upon the petitioners, both the revision petitions are dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 5, 2011 “DK”