Crl. Revision No.362 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.362 of 2002 Decided on 16.3.2009. Ratna and others Versus State of Haryana Present : Mr. A.K.Bura, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana. L.N.MITTAL,J. (Oral) This is revision petition by Ratna, Krishan, Siri Ram and Suraj Bhan, who stand convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 3.4.1998 and order dated 4.4.1998 by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short- IPC) as affirmed in appeal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide judgment dated 14.2.2002. According to the prosecution version, on 8.10.1990, Rajinder was taking his cattle to the field, when on the way, his buffalo came in front of cart of petitioners Ratna and Krishan and there was altercation. Rajinder narrated the same to his brother Prem Singh complainant. Both of them were sitting at their house when all the four accused came there armed with gandasis and jellies. Petitioner-Siri Ram inflicted gandasi blow on the right wrist of Prem Singh complainant. All the accused caused injuries to the complainant and his brother Rajinder as well as to Narain Devi wife of their Crl. Revision No.362 of 2002 2 another brother Anand. On medico-legal examination, an incised wound 3'' x 1½'' was found on the right wrist of Prem Singh with pieces of lower end of the radius bone cut. Radial artery was also cut. On x-ray examination, fracture lower end of right radius was seen. The occurrence was also witnessed by Roop Chand and Narinder. After investigation, the petitioners were sent for trial. Charge under sections 326 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses. Prem Singh-complainant (PW-1), Rajinder (PW-2) and Narinder (PW-5) have broadly stated according to the prosecution version that Siri Ram inflicted gandasi blow on the right wrist of the complainant, whereas all the four accused caused injuries to the complainant and his brother. Dr.Mahesh Parkash (PW-3) stated about medico-legal examination of the complainant whereas Dr.C.V.Singh (PW-4) stated about x-ray examination of the complainant. The petitioners in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed to be innocent. They examined Roop Chand as DW-1, who had been cited as prosecution witness. He stated that in his presence, the petitioners had not caused injuries to the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their assistance. Prem Singh, Rajinder and Narinder have supported the prosecution case. Their statements could not be shaken in cross- Crl. Revision No.362 of 2002 3 examination. Both the Courts have concurrently held the petitioners to be guilt of the offence under Sections 326 read with 34 IPC. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners also could not advance any meaningful argument to assail the finding of conviction except contending that investigating officer has not been examined. However, non-examination of investigating officer in such a case is immaterial when injured complainant and eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their statements are further corroborated by the medical evidence. The FIR was also lodged very promptly. The prosecution evidence is, thus, cogent and credible and sufficient to prove guilt of the petitioners. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently pleaded for reduction in sentence contending that only a single injury on non-vital part was caused by one of the four petitioners. No other injury has been proved. It has also been contended that occurrence took place on 8.10.1990 i.e. more than 18 years ago. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid prayer and contended that the petitioners are guilty of a serious offence. Custody certificates of the petitioners filed today in Court by learned State counsel reveal that they have already remained in custody for two months and three days out of sentence of imprisonment for eight months. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of Crl. Revision No.362 of 2002 4 imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them subject to the condition that they shall pay adequate amount of compensation for the injured complainant. It is ordered accordingly. The petitioners are directed to pay Rs.5000/- each as compensation for injured complainant-Prem Singh. The petitioners shall deposit the compensation amount with the trial Court within two months from today failing which the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit of compensation amount, the trial Magistrate shall issue notice to injured-complainant-Prem Singh and shall pay the compensation amount to him. With modification in sentence as aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. MITTAL ) JUDGE March 16, 2009 sv