Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998 Date of Decision: 8.8.2008 Pawan Kumar and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present petition has been preferred by Pawan Kumar and Anil Kumar, both sons of Sham Lal, residents of House No. 221/B, Patwan Mohalla, Karnal. The petitioners were named as accused in case FIR No. 304 dated 30.3.1989 registered at Police Station City, Karnal, under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court, after examining evidence, concluded as under:- “15. In view of my above stated detailed discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case by its over Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998 2 whelming oral as well as documentary evidence. It is proved beyond doubt that the accused Pawan Kumar under the influence of liquor, inflicted a kulhari blow on the head of complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 325 IPC whereas accused Mithu alias Anil Kumar inflicted Lathi blow on the person of complainant, therefore, he is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 PIC. Let they be heard on the point of quantum of sentence”. Thereafter, the trial Court sentenced the accused as under:- “19. Keeping in view the above said discussions, I sentence the accused Pawan Kumar to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- u/s 325 IPC and the other accused Anil Kumar is sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, accused Pawan Kumar shall further undergo imprisonment for six months whereas accused Anil Kumar shall have to undergo imprisonment for three months. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance”. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners had preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. In the present case, FIR was lodged at the instance of Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998 3 complainant Hari Krishan. It is stated that on 21.3.1989 at about 10.00 P.M. on a day of Holi festival, both the accused entered in the house of the complainant under the influence of liquor and were making noise. It is stated that accused became rash and Pawan Kumar inflicted kulhari blow from the back side on the head of the complainant, whereas his younger brother inflicted a lathi blow to the complainant due to which complainant became unconscious. Hari Krishan appeared as PW.1. PW.2 Saroj Kumari has supported the version of Hari Krishan PW.1. PW.3 Govind Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, is the Investigating Officer. PW.4 Dr. R.S.Chaudhary and PW.5 Dr. Sushil Bodhla had conducted radiological and medical examination of the injured. The argument that the witnesses are interested was repelled by the trial Court on the ground that PW.2 Saroj Devi, wife of the injured- complainant, was supposed to be present in the house and she is a natural witness. The argument that the injured was also under the influence of liquor was held to be of no consequence. Discrepancies, improvements and contradictions were pointed and the same are held not to be material. Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, at the outset has stated that he is not in a position to assail the conviction. He has prayed that the petitioners have suffered 19 years of protracted trial. It has been submitted that on a Holi festival without any pre- Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1998 4 mediation, on the spur of moment occurrence had ensued. It has been stated that admittedly both the accused and complainant were under the influence of liquor. It has been submitted that at the heat of the moment, as per prosecution case, occurrence had taken place. Petitioners are not hardened criminals. Therefore, they should be dealt with leniently and sending them behind the bars will serve no useful purpose. I find merit in this submission of counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to already undergone. It has been submitted that the petitioners have already undergone more than one month and ten days. However, the sentence of fine qua petitioner Pawan Kumar is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- and qua Anil Kumar, the fine is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid as compensation to Hari Krishan, complainant-injured. The trial Court shall call upon the petitioners to deposit the amount of fine within three months, after the receipt of copy of the order. The amount of fine, so deposited, shall be disbursed to injured Hari Krishan as compensation. In case, the amount of fine is not deposited, the petitioners shall not be entitled to reduction of sentence. With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 8, 2008 “DK”