IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1444 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2nd June, 2009 Mohinder Singh @ Dalip Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Issue notice of motion. On the asking of Court, Mr. S.S. Kharb, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State. Copy of paper book has been supplied to counsel for the State. Present revision petition has been filed by Mohinder Singh @ Dalip Singh son of Ram Diya, Vinod son of Baljeet, Balinder son of Baljeet, Anil Kumar son of Baljeet and Tejo wife of Mohinder Singh @ Dalip Singh. They have been convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 read with section 149 IPC. They have been further convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for commission of offence punishable under Section 324 read with section 149 Criminal Revision No. 1444 of 2009 (O&M) IPC. Petitioners have been fastened with a fine of Rs.250/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Petitioners had filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Hence, present revision petition has been filed. In the present case, Sunil Kumar made a statement to ASI Jai Parkash that on 25th October, 1996. He stated therein that he is a labourer. On 24th October, 1996 at around 4/5 p.m., he along with his paternal aunt, Satya Devi was in the house doing domestic work of filling the vessel with paddy. When they heard sound outside, they went out and found that accused Anil, Mohinder, Baljeet, Vinod, Ranjeet, Sanjay and Salochana were demolishing the wall. Over the wall, there was a dispute between complainant and Baljeet. When the complainant tried to restrain them, then Anil is stated to have picked up an axe lying there and hit on the left arm and left thigh of the complainant Sunil Kumar. Other accused have also caused beating with kick blows and slaps. Satya Devi came forward and intervened. She was also given injuries. Mohinder Singh gave an axe blow on her right arm. At that stage, Balak Ram, Pito Devi and Gaindi arrived at the spot and pelted stones at complainant and injured. The accused demolished the wall and left the complainant Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi injured. Sunil Kumar was examined by Dr.A.K. Gupta PW-2 on 24th October, 1996. Simple injuries were found on his person. Satya Devi was also examined. Four injuries were found on her person. Only injury No.1 was an incised wound, others were complaint of pain. Only present five petitioners were put to trial. Two courts below have found them guilty. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that he will not be able to assail conviction of the petitioners, as both the injured witnesses have deposed against the petitioners. The fact that Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi 2 Criminal Revision No. 1444 of 2009 (O&M) injured have suffered injuries, they cannot be disbelieved by the revisional Court, as revisional Court cannot tread on the path of re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that occurrence has taken place in year 1996. 13 years are going to elapse. Petitioners have suffered a protracted trial. On the spur of the moment, over the demolition of the wall, the occurrence had ensued. The suit filed by the complainant party was dismissed. Therefore, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a lenient view be taken. Counsel for the State has stated that even though occurrence is 13 years old, Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi have suffered injuries. I have seen the injuries. They have been reproduced in the judgment of the trial Court. The very fact that parties are neighbourers, resident of the same locality and that petitioners have suffered a protracted trial are the mitigating circumstances, which can be taken into consideration for reduction of sentence awarded upon the petitioners. Accordingly, sentence of three months simple imprisonment awarded upon the petitioners by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is reduced to two months simple imprisonment. However, sentence of fine is maintained. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE June 2, 2009 rps 3