In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.3328 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:25.1.2010 Hakam Singh and others .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions, Ludhiana whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon has been dismissed. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.11.1999 Manvir Singh- complainant was taking dinner with his father Inderjit Singh and brother Harvir Singh in their house which is in the fields. At that time, they heard the noise of earth being dug from the fields behind the house of Hakam Singh (petitioner No.1). The father of the complainant asked him to see. When the complainant went outside, he saw that the petitioners were present there. Hakam Singh (petitioner No.1) was armed with a Gandasa; Manjit Singh (petitioner No.3) was armed with a Dang, Harwinder Singh alias Rodda (petitioner No.4) was armed with a Gandasa, Paramjit Singh alias Cr. Revision No.3328 of 2009 [2] Pamma (petitioner No.2) was armed with a Kahi (spade) and Saudagar Singh (petitioner No.5) was standing in the fields. Some persons were digging the earth. On seeing the complainant-Manvir Singh, Saudagar Singh (petitioner No.5) raised a `Lalkara'. On this, Hakam Singh (petitioner No.1) gave a Gandasa blow in the middle finger of right hand of Manvir Singh. Harwinder Singh alias Rodda (petitioner No.4) gave a Gandasa blow on the right hand of Manvir Singh. Manjit Singh (petitioner No.3) gave a Dang blow on the head of Manvir Singh whereas Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (petitioner No.2) inflicted injuries on the person of Manvir Singh. On hearing the cries of the complainant, his father Inderjit Singh and brother Harvir Singh came at the spot. Thereafter, all the petitioners ran away with their respective weapons. The motive for causing the injuries was that the petitioners wanted to take forcible possession of the land of the complainant which was adjoining the house of Hakam Singh (petitioner No.1). The petitioners have been convicted by both the Courts below for the offences under Sections 326, 323, 148 read with Section 149 IPC. For the offence under Section 326 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As regards offence under Section 323 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offence under Section 148 IPC they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the Cr. Revision No.3328 of 2009 [3] record, no merit is found insofar as the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the Courts below. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence and material on record have held the case to be proved against the petitioners. It may, however, be noticed that Hakam Singh (petitioner No.1) is attributed a grievous injury on the right middle fingers of the complainant-Manvir Singh. The said injury was injury No.3 in the medical report given by Dr. Gurbachan Singh (PW-3). Injury No.1 was just above the left ear and was found to be simple in nature. The said injury is attributed to Manjit Singh (petitioner No.3). Injuries No.2 and 3 were on the right index finger and right middle finger of Manvir Singh. These were initially kept under observation. Injury No.2 has been declared simple in nature which is attributed to Harwinder Singh alias Rodda (petitioner No.4). No injury is attributed to Saudagar Singh. The prosecution has proved its case, besides, the presence of all the accused at the time of occurrence has been held to be established. The petitioners have been found guilty for the offence under Section 149 IPC as well. It may be noticed that the grievous injury, i.e. injury No.3 on the person of Manvir Singh-complainant is attributed to petitioner No.1. The other injuries No.1 and 2 are simple in nature. Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (petitioner No.2) is attributed an injury which he is stated to have caused with Kahi (spade) but the same has not been found on medical examination. The petitioners have faced the travails of trial for the last more than ten years from the date of occurrence i.e. 8.11.1999. As per custody certificates that have been filed in Court today and are taken on record, there is no other case pending against the petitioners. The petitioners have Cr. Revision No.3328 of 2009 [4] also been found guilty for the offence under Section 149 IPC which is recorded in the order of conviction dated 6.9.2005 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon although has not been mentioned while sentencing the petitioners. In any case, the same does not in any manner affect the order of conviction and sentence that has been passed as admittedly from the facts and circumstances of the case Hakam Singh (petitioner No.1) has been convicted for the substantive offence under Section 326 IPC while the other petitioners have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Besides, mere omission of the offence under Section 149 IPC while passing the order of sentence has not resulted in any prejudice to the petitioners. The sentencing of petitioners No.2 to 5 for the offence under Section 326 IPC is with the aid of Section 149 IPC as is recorded in the order of conviction passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, which has been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The injuries have been caused by the petitioners when they came to take forcible possession of the land which belongs to the complainant-Manvir Singh and his father Inderjit Singh. Saudagar Singh has been attributed only a `Lalkara'. As per custody certificate, he has undergone one month and ten days of imprisonment. Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (petitioner No.2) has not been attributed any injury as the injury alleged to have been caused by him with spade has not been found on medical examination and is not there in the medical report. The petitioners No.3 and 4 have been attributed simple injuries. Therefore, it would be just and expedient if the sentence of imprisonment of petitioners No.2 to 5 is reduced for the offence under Cr. Revision No.3328 of 2009 [5] Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC from one year to six months and the fine of Rs.1,000/- each of the said petitioners No.2 to 5 is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- each. In the circumstances, the sentence for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC in respect of petitioners No.2 to 5 is reduced from one year to six months and their fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- each. The conviction for other offences and sentences awarded shall remain intact as they are. With the modification of sentence of petitioners No.2 to 5 only as above, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of and stands dismissed qua petitioner No.1. January 25, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*