Criminal Revision No.923 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Revision No.923 of 2003 ((O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 15.9.2011 Bhag Singh and others PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Mandeep Kaushik for Shri Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, D.A.G. Punjab. Shri Sanjay Jangra for Shri D.D.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned trial Court dated 12.8.1998 and that of the learned First Appellate Court dated 29.3.2003. The petitioners faced accusations that they had tried to disturb the possession of the complainant which led to a free fight in which grievous injuries were inflicted by the petitioners upon the complainant. The reason for the dispute is that the petitioners are alleged to have formed a boundary with mud in the field of the complainant which led to the occurrence. The complainant suffered the Criminal Revision No.923 of 2003 -2- following injuries on his person as a result of the said incident :- (1) An incised wound size 4-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm one cut with chip fracture present on the left side of scalp parallel to mid hair line 10 cm from the left ear pinni. Size of chip 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm fresh bleeding was not infected. (2) A sub conjective 1 haemorrhage present on the lateral side of cornia left eye. (3) A lacerated wound size 3/4 cm x 1/2 cm present on the inner side of upper lip in its middle part. (4) Swelling present around the right ankle joint and right foot. Advised X-Ray. Upon an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court concluded that the petitioners had indeed caused injuries to the complainant and thus, recorded conviction of Bhag Singh (petitioner No.1) under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Besides this, all the other accused including Bhag Singh were also convicted and sentenced for having committed an offence under Sections 323,506,148 I.P.C., the details of which are given as under :- “(1) Under Section 148 I.P.C., all the accused/convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. (2) Under Section 326 I.P.C., convict Bhag Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 (Rs.five hundred) in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days and under Sections 326/149 I.P.C. the convicts Rajinder Singh, Mohinder Criminal Revision No.923 of 2003 -3- Singh, Major Singh and Shingara SIngh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two yeas and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rs.five hundred each) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. (3) Under Section 323 I.P.C. convicts Rajinder Singh, Mohinder Singh, Major Singh and Shingara Singh are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months an under Section323/149 convict Bhag Singh is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. (4) Under Section 506 Part-II of the I.P.C., all the convicts i.e. Bhag Singh, Rajinder SIngh, Mohinder Singh, Major Singh and Shingara Singh are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.” Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that petitioner No.1 Bhag Singh has undergone about 10 months of the actual sentence awarded to him, while the other petitioners have undergone about six months and one petitioner namely Jeon Singh has since expired. He contends that the occurrence is of the year 1993 and the petitioners have faced the agony of criminal prosecution for the last 18 years. He thus contends that all these factors should be taken into account while considering the matter and the leniency which the petitioners deserve should be afforded to them. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that there is no redeeming feature in the case of the petitioners as the evidence overwhelmingly points to their complicity which has been duly established by the Criminal Revision No.923 of 2003 -4- two courts and thus, the revision petition be dismissed. Besides this, petitioner No.1 has admitted his guilt in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., leaving no room for any other conclusion than the one which has been arrived at by the courts below. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the evidence on record clearly points to the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. The incident and the occurrence was duly established by the eye-witness and the complainant who was injured in the incident. In any eventuality, the sole submission that has been made before this Court is regarding taking a lenient view of the situation in view of the stated factors that the petitioners have faced the agony of trial for the last 18 years and that they have undergone substantive portion of their sentence and it would be harsh to send them behind the bars at this stage. As a result of the aforesaid, I am further of the opinion that there is merit in what the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated before this Court. The petitioners have indeed faced the agony of criminal prosecution for the last 18 years. The fight also erupted suddenly without their being any premeditative intent to cause injuries. The complainant's contention if accepted, indicates that he was keen to protect his possession in interference in his property and on his protest, the fight erupted. Since there is no established criminality and for the reason that petitioner No.1 has undergone 10 months of substantive sentence, while the other petitioners have also undergone 6 months of substantive sentence, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to that already undergone and the fine component enhanced in lieu thereof. Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the extent already undergone by Criminal Revision No.923 of 2003 -5- them, but they shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, which burden shall be shared equally between the petitioners. The said amount be deposited before the learned trial Court within a period of three months from today. The failure to do so would result in revival of the sentence awarded to the petitioners. (MAHESH GROVER) September 15, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO