Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2002 Date of Decision: 31.3.2010 Gura Ditta alias Gurra and Others …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Gurjeet Singh Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Gura Ditta alias Gurra, Iqbal Singh and Gama alias Gurnam Singh. It is stated that Gura Ditta alias Gurra has expired during the pendency of the present revision petition. On the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners, present petition qua Gura Ditta alias Gurra stands abated. However, as a matter of abundant caution, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, is directed to hold an enquiry and send a report to this Court within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, it is found that Gura Ditta alias Gurra has expired, no further reference be made to Bench. Otherwise, the Registry may revive the present petition Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2002 2 qua Gura Ditta alias Gurra. These three petitioners were named as accused in case FIR No. 15 dated 9.1.1989, registered at Police Station City, Dabwali, under Sections 325, 326, 34 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, who found them guilty of an offence, vide its judgment dated 13.11.1997, under Sections 323, 325 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them as under:- Name of accused Offence under Section Sentence awarded Gura Ditta alias Gurra, Iqbal Singh and Gama alias Gurnam Singh 323 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 325 read with Section 34 IPC. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 326 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was also Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2002 3 directed that the amount of fine, so deposited, would be paid to injured Naib Singh as a compensation. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners had filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide its judgment dated 21.12.2001, by upholding the conviction and maintaining the sentence. In the present case, the FIR was lodged on the statement made by Naib Singh, who was posted as a Patwari at Sirsa. He stated that Saturday and Sunday being holidays, he had come to his village. On Sunday, 8.1.1989, he had gone to his fields along with his father and reached there at about 6.30 P.M. where the accused were standing along with their motorcycle. Gurra was armed with a gandasa and Iqbal Singh and Gama were armed with lathies. On seeing the complainant, Gurra had raised a lalkara and all the accused had caused ten injuries to Naib Singh. On 8.1.1989 at about 9.20 P.M., Naib Singh was medicolegally examined by PW.1 Dr. Hans Raj Godara and ten injuries were found on his person. Injury No.1 was an incised wound curved in shape 11 cm x 1½ cm. Bone deep over the scalp in right fronto parietal region. PW.7 Dr. B.D. Grover had conducted radiological examination of Naib Singh and found fracture of right fronto parietal bone and fracture of left shaft of ulna. There was also a chip fracture of the left lower tibia. Thus, Naib Singh had suffered three grievous injuries. Injury Nos.1, 3, and 10 were declared grievous. Injury No.1 falls within the Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2002 4 ambit of Section 326 and is attributed to Gura Ditta alias Gurra, who had expired during the pendency of revision petition. Injury Nos. 3 and 10 have been caused with blunt weapon, therefore, they fall within the ambit of Section 325 IPC. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the testimonies of PW.2 Naib Singh and his father PW.3 Bhupinder Singh. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. I have perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts below, which do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, the sentence awarded upon the petitioners is affirmed. However, in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1989 and about 21 years are going to elapse. The petitioners have suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for more than two decades. Learned counsel for the State has placed on record affidavit of Superintendent, District Jail, Sirsa, according to which, petitioner Iqbal Singh has undergone one month and 26 days, whereas petitioner Gama alias Gurnam Singh has undergone two months and two days, out of three years' sentence awarded to them. There seems to be no justification in sending the petitioners behind the bars after 21 years of occurrence, however, the injured can be compensated in monetary terms. Therefore, taking the entire conspectus of the case into consideration, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice will be fully met in case, sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to already undergone and that of fine is enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2002 5 Rs.30,000/- qua each accused. The petitioners shall deposit the enhanced amount of fine in the trial Court, within three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed to the injured as a compensation. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit in reduction of sentence shall accrue to the petitioners. It is stated that the fine of Rs.6,000/-, as awarded by the trial Court, has already been deposited by the petitioners. The amount of fine, already deposited, shall be adjusted towards the enhanced amount of fine. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 31, 2010 “DK”