Criminal Revision No. 906 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Revision No. 906 of 2005 Date of Decision : 16.2.2011 Jarnail Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ......Respondents 2. Criminal Revision No. 1728 of 2005 Date of Decision : 16.2.2011 Jarnail Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of above mentioned two revision petitions arising out of judgment dated April 19th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby he affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 20th, 2003 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn-Taran, and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under: Offence Sentence Fine In default Jarnail Singh 326 IPC RI for 1 year ` 200/- SI for 2 months 324/34 IPC RI for 6 months - - Gursewak Singh 326/34 IPC RI for 1 year ` 200/- SI for 2 months 324 IPC RI for 6 months - - The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Revision No. 906 of 2005 2 .. 2. The factual background, in nut-shell, is as follows: On November 7th, 1996 at about 8.00 AM, occurrence took place between the petitioners on one side and Shangara Singh, Avtar Singh and Gurpal Singh on other side over a dispute regarding possession of land measuring about 20 kanals situated in Village Musse Kalan. In the occurrence, Jarnail Singh (petitioner No.1) received four injuries and Gursewak Singh (Petitioner No.2) received eight injuries at the hands of the opposite party. On the statement of Jarnail Singh (petitioner No.1) case bearing First Information Report No143 dated November 12th, 1996 under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) was registered in Police Station Chhabal against the opposite party viz. Shangara Singh, Avtar Singh and Gurpal Singh. The petitioners were not challaned by the Police. Shangara Singh filed complaint against the petitioners. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn-Taran by order dated September 20th, 2003, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as mentioned in paragraph No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that Shangara Singh, Avtar Singh and Gurpal Singh were also convicted and sentenced by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn-Taran by order of even date, that is, September 20th, 2003 under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 324 and one year under Section 326 IPC. Both the parties preferred appeals before Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed whereas, the appeal filed by Shangara Singh and two others was accepted and they were acquitted of the charge. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have filed the aforementioned two revisions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. He prays that the sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone, that is, about 3 months. It was Criminal Revision No. 906 of 2005 3 .. submitted that Jarnail Singh is in his 80s whereas, Gursewak Singh is not previous convict and is the only bread winner of his family. They have faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of 15 years. He also added that it was a case of free-fight as observed by the trial Court in its judgment. Jarnail Singh, petitioner No.1 received four injuries, viz. (1) An incised wound 1x1/4 cm. Just below the lateral region of left eyebrow. Fresh blood was oozing from the wound; (2) An incised wound 3x1 cms on vertral surface of base and right thumb underlying muscle and capsule cut and wound opens into the joint space. Fresh blood was oozing from the wound; (3) An incised wound 4x1 cms on lateral side of left forearm 6 cms from the wrist joint. Fresh blood was oozing from the wound. Advised X-ray and (4). An incised wound 1- 1/2 x ½ cms on left forearm 3 cms about injury No.3. Fresh blood was oozing. Advised X-ray, out of which, injury No.2 was declared grievous and all the injuries were opined to have been caused with sharp edged weapon. 4. Gursewak Singh, petitioner No.2 received eight injuries viz., (1) An incised wound 5-1/2x2 cms on ventral surface of right forearm 2 cms about the wrist joint underlying muscle tenders cut. Ulnor astery cut. Wound was bleeding profusely; (2). An incised wound 1x1/2 cms on dorsum of middle of right thumb. Fresh blood was oozing; (3).An incised wound 2-1/2x1 cms on dorsum of middle of left index finger. Fresh blood was oozing. Advised X-ray; (4)An incised wound 2-1/2x1/4 cms on central surface of left thumb; (5) An incised wound 1x1/4 cms on top of middle finger; (6) An incised wound 1x1/4 cms on top of left ring finger. Fresh blood was oozing; (7) An abrasion 19x1/4 cms on front of chest and (8). An abrasion 1x1/2 cms on fore arm 4 cm below the left elbow, out of which injury No.1 was declared grievous and all the injuries were opined to have been caused with sharp edged weapon. 5. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the Criminal Revision No. 906 of 2005 4 .. conviction of the petitioners but reduces their sentence to the period already undergone by them. 6. In view of above, Criminal Revision No. 906 of 2005 is accepted partly and Criminal Revision No. 1728 of 2005 against acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 16.02.2011. som