Criminal Revision No.1023 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1023 of 1997 Date of Decision:14.07.2009 Birbal and others .....Petitioners Vs. The State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Saurav Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against judgment dated 7.10.1997 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani whereby appeal was dismissed with modification in the terms that all the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC with a further direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal was dismissed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 20.2.1996 rendered by the Court of learned Judicial Criminal Revision No.1023 of 1997 -2- Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri vide which the accused Birbal, Suresh and Ramesh were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. As set up by the prosecution, the complainant Deep Chand and the accused Birbal are brothers. The accused Suresh and Ramesh are the sons of another brother of the complainant, who along with the accused were having 20 killas of land, which was partitioned off by the complainant as well as the accused in a Panchayat. The complainant had sown the mustard crop in one of the killa, which had fallen to his share. The accused Birbal while irrigating his land made a cut in Deep Chand's land. The latter brought this fact to the notice of the Sarpanch who scolded Birbal. On 9.11.1990, at 8:00 A.M. Deep Chand was talking with his wife Bhateri, while standing in the street in front of his house. Meanwhile, the accused Birbal and Suresh armed with lathi each came over there. Accused Birbal delivered a lathi blow, which fell on the thigh of Deep Chand. The accused Suresh dealt a lathi blow on the waist of Deep Chand who fell down on the ground. Birbal gave a lathi blow thrustwise on the mouth of Deep Chand, which hit his teeth. Bhateri tried to save her husband. In the meantime, Ramesh Kumar who was also armed with a lathi reached there and gave a lathi blow on the buttock of Bhateri. Balbir again gave a lathi blow on the thigh and chest of Bhateri. Suresh gave a kick blow on the knee of Bhateri. Deep Chand raised alarm which attracted Shivla and Ram Kishan who Criminal Revision No.1023 of 1997 -3- rescued Deep Chand from the clutches of the accused, who thereafter ran towards their fields. Out of fear, Deep Chand and his wife did not stir out of their house. On the next day, they were removed to the hospital Dadri. On the basis of Deep Chand's statement, the case was registered. In pursuance thereof, the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused. The accused were charged under Sections 325/323 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined Dr. N.K. Mittal PW1, Deep Chand PW2, Bhateri PW3, Dr. Sachin Dentist PW4, Harbans Lal ASI PW5. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. They did not adduce any evidence in their defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed earlier. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, they have preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per death certificate bearing No.255496 purportedly issued by the Sub Registrar, Death and Births, PHC Mankawas (Bhiwani), Birbal- petitioner has breathed his last on 31.3.2008. Thus, this petition has abated Criminal Revision No.1023 of 1997 -4- against Birbal. Realising that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not wish to assail the finding returned by both the Courts below. On scrutinising and analysing the evidence with due care and caution, I do not find any reason on the record to take an exception to the findings arrived at by both the Courts below in recording conviction of the petitioners Suresh as well as Ramesh. Sequelly, their conviction recorded by both the Courts below is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed into service that this incidence being more than 19 years old, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. He further puts that as a matter of fact, the parties have entered into compromise vide Annexure P.1, Annexure P.2, the affidavits of Bhateri Devi and Deep Chand respectively. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. In re: Suraj Singh v. State (Chandigarh UT), 2005(3) Recent Criminal Reports 583, the accused was convicted for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. He faced trial for 20 years. His sentence was reduced to the already undergone (16 days). Here in this case, the surviving petitioners have undergone two months of the actual sentence. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1990. Such happenings do take place in ordinary life and there is nothing unusual. If the petitioners are sent to jail to serve the remaining period of sentence, this may revive the bad blood between the parties. To crown it all, as is being evidenced by Criminal Revision No.1023 of 1997 -5- Annexures P.1 and P.2, the parties have entered into compromise. Such being the circumstances, the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the already undergone. With the above modification in sentence, this revision petition is dismissed. July 14, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No