Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2009 Date of decision: August 27, 2009 Chander Singh & others -Petitioners Versus State of Haryana -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) Petitioners Chander Singh, Udaybir, Rohtas and Jasbir Singh had been convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli, under Sections 323/325/34 IPC vide judgment dated 11-7-2007. Vide order dated 12.7.2007, they were sentenced as under:- Under Section Sentence 323 IPC RI for six months each 325 IPC RI for two years and fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine further RI for two months each. However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the judgment of their conviction/sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide judgment dated 4th March, 2009 dismissed the appeal, upholding conviction & sentence awarded by the trial court. . Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioners have approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2009 2 Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of the petitioners is maintained, the Court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case, subject to payment of adequate compensation to both the injured. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 25-2-1999 at about 4-00 PM Smt. Rajbai along with her daughter Santosh and younger son Aman had gone to her Nohra for bringing fodder. When she was unbolting the door of Nohra, Jaibir and Udaybir accused/petitioners armed with lathis came there and started giving lathi blows to her, thereby causing injuries on her left hand and left leg. When her daughter Santosh tried to rescue her, Rohtas and Chander Singh armed with lathi and farshi respectively came there and started beating her. On raising hue and cry Amar, Rambir and Rajender were attracted to the spot, who rescued the complainant and her daughter from the clutches of the accused. Both the injured were admitted to hospital for treatment. There was history of previous enmity between the parties over a house, regarding which a case was already pending. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioner, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2009 3 them. They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated They examined two witnesses in their defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioners guilty of the charge and sentenced them as already indicated above. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the the evidence on record has been rightly appreciated. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings returned by both the courts below. The conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgments of conviction. He has however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioners are first offenders, they are poor persons and have already faced the agony of protracted trial for several years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to RI for six months each. However, the amount of fine imposed upon them is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. The amount, if paid by the petitioners shall be disbursed to both the injured as compensation in equal shares. The petitioners are directed to deposit the said amount before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, in case the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioners shall undergo the remaining period of Criminal Revision No. 656 of 2009 4 sentence, as awarded by the trial Court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge August 27, 2009. 'ask'