-1- Criminal Appeal No.382-SB of 1999. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.382-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: January 29, 2010. Gurdial Singh and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr.K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment of conviction and the sentence order passed by the learned Additional Sessions -2- Criminal Appeal No.382-SB of 1999. Judge, Ambala, convicting and sentencing appellant Gurdial Singh under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'), and the other appellants under Section 323 of the Code. Except appellant Gurdial Singh, the others were extended the benefit of probation by the trial Judge. Under Section 326, appellant Gurdial Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under Section 324 of the Code, appellant Gurdial Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. After considering the ocular as well as medical evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court found that accused-appellant Gurdial Singh had caused `Gandasi' blows to Gurnam Singh and Lado Devi and one of the injuries on the person of Lado Devi (wrongly mentioned as Gurnam Singh in the judgment) was declared grievous in nature. I have heard Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State of Haryana and have gone through the records of the case. In the instant F.I.R, two challans were filed in the Court. As held by the trial Court, it was a case of free fight in which both the sides received injuries and that none of the party -3- Criminal Appeal No.382-SB of 1999. was aggressor. Learned counsel for the appellants confined his argument only to the extent that the injury attributed to appellant Gurdial Singh with `Gandasi' on the person of Lado Devi does not fall within the purview of Section 326 of the Code and, rather, it falls under Section 324 of the Code. However, after perusing the evidence of Dr.N.P.Jindal (P.W.11), I do not find any merit in this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. Dr.N.P.Jindal (P.W.11) had referred injury No.1 on the person of Lado Devi i.e incised wound on the lateral border of her left forearm, for x-ray examination. This injury was opined to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injury No.1 was declared grievous in nature as fracture of left elbow was detected. Thus, the injury caused by appellant Gurdial Singh on the person of Lado Devi clearly falls under Section 326 of the Code. Without dilating on the matter any further and keeping in view the fact that it was a free fight between the parties in which none of the parties was aggressor, I am of the opinion that appellant Gurdial Singh deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. As mentioned above, the remaining appellants had been extended the benefit of probation by the trial Court. The occurrence in this case had taken place in August, 1994 and after a protracted trial, the appellants were convicted on 3.4.1999 and sentenced on 5.4.1999 by the trial -4- Criminal Appeal No.382-SB of 1999. Court. The sentence awarded to appellant Gurdial Singh was suspended by this Court on 24.6.1999, when this appeal was admitted for hearing. Thus, the Sword of Damocles remained hanging over the head of appellant Gurdial Singh for more than fifteen years and five months. In view of the above and taking into account the fact that appellant Gurdial Singh has already undergone incarceration for about twenty days after his conviction, I think no useful purpose will be served in sending the appellant to prison again at this stage and ends of justice will be adequately met if appellant Gurdial Singh is also ordered to be released on probation by maintaining the sentence of fine, as imposed by the trial Court under Sections 324 and 326 of the Code i.e total Rs.5500/-, and the default clause. I order accordingly. It is directed that appellant Gurdial Singh be released on probation for a period of one year. He should furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- , each, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking to appear and receive sentence when called upon to do so during this period and, in the meantime, to maintain peace and be of good behaviour. The fine, if not already deposited, be deposited and the requisite bonds be furnished within a period of two months of the receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if appellant Gurdial Singh fails to deposit the fine and furnish the requisite bonds, as afore- stated, this appeal qua Gurdial Singh shall be deemed to have -5- Criminal Appeal No.382-SB of 1999. been dismissed. The impugned sentence order qua Gurdial Singh (appellant) is modified to the extent indicated above. The conviction of appellant Gurdial Singh under Sections 324 and 326 of the Code and of the other appellants under Section 323 of the Code is maintained. With the above modification in the sentence order qua appellant Gurdial Singh, this appeal is hereby dismissed. January 29, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE