Criminal Revision No.1188 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1188 of 2002 Date of Decision: May 26, 2009 Nathu Singh and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vijay,Advocate, for Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr.V.K.Bali,Advocate for the complainant ** Sabina, J. Petitioner-Nathu Singh was convicted for an offence under Sections 326/324 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and petitioner- Budh Singh was convicted under Sections 323 IPC vide judgment dated 1.9.1999 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Karnal. Vide order of even date, petitioner-Nathu Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 324 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 326 IPC. Petitioner-Budh Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences of accused Nathu Criminal Revision No.1188 of 2002 2 Singh were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was partly accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide judgment dated 28.5.2002 vide which Nathu Singh was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 326 IPC and the amount of fine of Rs.3000/- already deposited under the said Section shall be adjusted towards compensation to be paid to the complainant and the appeal under Section 324 IPC was dismissed. The appeal filed on behalf of the appellant Budh Singh was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “ Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 10.11.1984 ASI Satyavir Singh after receiving a ruqa Ex.PW3/A from P.H.C.Taraori regarding the admission of injured Jamadar Singh and Jasbir Singh rushed to the hospital in order to record the statement of injured. He obtained the opinion of the attending doctor namely Umesh Kapoor, who declared the patient fit to make a statement vide opinion Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the complainant-Jamadar Singh, Ex.PA. As per the allegations of the complainant, he is employed as a teacher in Government High School, Sambhli. His father Bani Singh along with Nasib Singh, Raunak Singh, Ram Pal and Ram Chander had acquired the land measuring 31 acres by way of a decree of pre-emption, which was partitioned amongst them in five equal shares. Ram Pal son of Nihal Singh and Ram Chander son of Inder Singh wanted to take possession of the land Criminal Revision No.1188 of 2002 3 belonging to the complainant illegally, which was being cultivated by him for the last ten years. Today, i.e. on 10.11.1984 at 10 A.M. the complainant was sitting on the daul of his fields, in the meantime accused Nathu Singh armed with gandasi, Isham Singh armed with gandasi, Budh Singh armed with lathi, Ram Pal armed with lathi appeared at the spot with the common intention to cause injuries on his person. Accused Nathu Singh and Isham Singh gave the blows of gandasi on his head, whereas accused Budh Singh and Pal gave blows of lathis on his shoulder, neck, head and elbows. As a result of which he fell down and raised alarm. After listening the noise, his sons namely Jasbir Singh and Kuldeep Singh who were ploughing the fields appeared at the site, in order to rescue him from the clutches of the accused. The accused party also gave the gandasi blow as well as the lathi blows on their person and thereafter, the accused left the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant was brought by his son Kuldeep Singh to P.H.C. Taraori for treatment. After recording the statement of the complainant, a ruqa Ex.PW3/C was sent to the police station whereupon formal FIR Ex.PW3/D was recorded. ASI Satyavir Singh, the investigating officer reached at the place of occurrence where he prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW3/F with marginal notes at the spot, recorded the statements of the witnesses and did other usual acts of investigations. He collected the copies of MLRs and x-ray reports of the injured. After completion of all the formalities of investigations, the accused were challaned by Satyavir Singh then Criminal Revision No.1188 of 2002 4 Station House Officer of Police station, Butana vide his report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.1973”. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner-Nathu Singh under Section 324 IPC and petitioner-Budh Singh under Section 323 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners are not the previous convict and are facing criminal proceedings since the year 1984. Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment of petitioner-Nathu Singh under Section 324 IPC and petitioner-Budh Singh under Section 323 IPC is liable to be reduced to already undergone by them. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner-Nathu Singh under Section 324 IPC and petitioner-Budh Singh under Section 323 IPC is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge May 26, 2009 arya