Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 Date of decision: 11th January, 2008 Jit Singh and others …Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr.Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.AS Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Harbans Lal, J. This revision is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 19th November, 1990 whereby the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Zira acquitted the accused Ajaib Singh, Sukhmander Singh, Joginder Singh, Naib Singh and Hazara Singh from the charges framed against them, convicted and sentenced the accused Jit Singh, Baldev Singh, Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh as under: 1. Jit Singh U/s 326/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [2] U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Baldev Singh U/s 326/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Balwinder Singh U/s 326/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. Mohinder Singh U/s 326 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- or in its default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324/34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. U/s 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment/order of sentence dated 19th November, 1990 the accused, namely, Jit Singh, Baldev Singh, Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [3] Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide his judgment dated 3rd September, 1996. Succinctly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 23rd April, 1986 Darshan Singh, his brother Jagir Singh and Jagir Singh’s wife Angrez Kaur were proceeding towards their farm house. When they all three neared the tube-well of their uncle Hazara Singh, Mohinder Singh accused armed with gandasa, Balwinder Singh holding Kirpan, Baldev Singh and Jit Singh armed with Gandasa each, Joginder Singh, Ajaib Singh, Naib Singh, Sukhmander Singh and Hazara Singh armed with lathi each came out of the tube-well room. Hazara Singh raised a lalkara that Darshan Singh and others be not allowed to escape and be taught a lesson for not surrendering the possession of the land. Simultaneously, all the accused attacked Darshan Singh. Accused Mohinder Singh dealt a gandasa blow from its sharp-edged side on the left leg of Darhsan Singh. Balwinder Singh gave kirpan blow which landed on the left leg of Darshan Singh. Baldev Singh delivered a gandasi blow which rested on the forehead of Darshan Singh, who fell down on the ground. When he lay fallen on the ground, Jit Singh accused gave gandasa blow hitting his left leg. His co-accused gave lathi blows on various parts of his body. Jagir Singh physically intervened to save Darshan Singh. Mohinder Singh delivered a gandasa blow from its sharp edged side on his hands. On being raised alarm by Jagir Singh as well as his wife Angrez Kaur, the accused decamped from the spot with their respective weapons. Darshan Singh was brought to the house of Jagir Singh. Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [4] Out of fear, the injured party could not report the matter to the police in the night time. On the next morning, Natha Singh cousin of Darshan Singh removed the latter to Civil Hospital, Mallanwala where he was medico- legally examined. The motive behind the occurrence was that the father of Darshan Singh and his three brothers, out of whom only Hazara Singh was alive, were in possession of about 8/9 acres of custodian land, which was subsequently allotted to Surat Singh son of Lachhman Singh, Mazbi, resident of Village Bharana by the custodian. Hazara Singh got transferred in his name 4 killas of land. A case was also pending in the court. On receipt of a medico-legal report of Darshan Singh in the Police Station on 24th April, 1986, Sub Inspector Gulab Singh accompanied by L.C. Swaran Singh and Gurcharan Singh reached the Civil Hospital, Mallanwala and after seeking the opinion of the Doctor, recorded the statement of Darshan Singh. On the basis of the same, formal FIR was recorded. SI Gulab Singh inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan, showing the place of occurrence. In due course, the accused were arrested. Later on, Naib Singh, Baldev Singh, Balwinder Singh, Mohinder Singh and Hazara Singh accused were found to be innocent and they were shown in column no.2 of the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused were charged under Sections 326/324/323/148/149 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and closed its evidence. When examined under Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [5] Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. They came up with the plea that Jagir Singh and Darshan Singh injured are persons of quarrelsome nature and they have great enmity with the people in the village. Some unknown persons had caused injuries to them at night time; that Mohinder Singh alongwith Balwinder Singh, Joginder Singh and Hazara Singh accused had purchased land from Surat Singh son of Lachhman Singh, Mazbi, resident of Village Bharana. This land was purchased by Surat Singh from the Government. Jagir Signh and Darshan Singh injured intended to purchase it. They nursed a grudge against the accused. Therefore, in connivance with each other they have falsely implicated them. The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court by acquitting the accused, namely, Ajaib Singh, Sukhmander Singh, Joginder Singh, Naib Singh and Hazara Singh, convicted and sentenced the accused Jit Singh, Baldev Singh, Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh at noticed at the outset. Undaunted by the judgments of both the courts below, the accused/appellants have preferred this revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and circumspection. Mr.Vinod Ghai, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners realizing that he would not be able to persuade this Court to take Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [6] a view contrary to the observations made by the Courts below, submitted that the incident being more than 21 years old, the sentence inflicted upon the petitioners may be reduced to the one already undergone, in view of the observations rendered in re: Nirmal Singh vs. State of Punjab 2005(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 477 and Om Parkash alias Parkash vs. State of Haryana 2003(3) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 766. Mr.Antar Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has not opposed this prayer. A careful delving into the record would reveal that this case carry a chequered history. The petitioners Baldev Singh, Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh and their co-accused Joginder Singh and Ajaib Singh were found to be innocent during investigation. They all were placed in column no.2 of the final report. They were summoned by the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 9th June, 1989, after recording the statement of Darshan Singh PW. After their summoning, the examination-in-chief of Darshan Singh was not recorded in their presence. Only his cross-examination was recorded on 8th March, 1989. Darshan Singh did not support the prosecution case in his cross-examination by stating that he could not identify the accused due to the darkness and that all the accused persons were in muffled faces and that he had named the petitioners and their co-accused only at the asking of the people. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that since examination-in-chief of Darshan Singh was not recorded in the presence of Joginder Singh and Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [7] Ajaib Singh, therefore, said evidence could not be used against them. The learned trial Judge did not give the benefit of the same to Balwinder Singh, Baldev Singh and Mohinder Singh petitioners though for the same reason acquitted Joginder Singh, and Ajaib Singh co-accused of the petitioners. In appeal, the petitioners raised the plea that the evidence of Darshan Singh could not be used against them and their conviction under Section 326 of IPC was bad as the examination-in-chief of Darshan Singh was recorded before their summoning. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and ordered retrial with a direction to re-record the evidence of Darshan Singh. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No.639 of 1991 in this Court against the order of the Appellate Court. This Court vide order dated 29th October, 1991 set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and remanded the case for retrial with a direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to rehear the appeal and exercise power to summon and examine Darshan Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge again summoned Darshan Singh for examination and in his evidence he supported the prosecution version. In re: Om Parkash alias Parkash (supra) also the accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 324/326 IPC. The matter being 21 years old, the sentence was reduced to already undergone, which was 20 days. Sentence of fine was set aside and the accused was directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the victim under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Further, in re Nirmal Singh (supra), the incident was 17 years Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [8] old. The sentence was reduced to already undergone (One month). The accused was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10000/- to the complainant. In case Dalel Singh vs. State of Haryana 2004(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Crl.) 358, accused were convicted and sentenced under Sections 325 and 326 of IPC. The occurrence being 21 years old, the sentence was reduced to already undergone (1½ month). Harking back to the facts of the case in hand, the petitioners have been facing agony of trial since 1986. In re: Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh & others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2127, it has been held that “the provision relating to awarding of compensation to victims while imposing sentence has been seldom invoked. It has been held that in addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some of the amount by way of compensation to the victim who has suffered by the act of the accused. This power is intended to do something to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender”. The incident is 21 years old. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1986. After this occurrence, there has been no incident between the parties and one feels that the parties have come to a peace and there has been for getting and forgiving. In such a case, if the petitioners are sent to jail to serve the remaining period of sentence, this may revive the bad blood between the parties and precipitate the matter. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the sentence is reduced to the already undergone (more than one month). The victim can Crl.Revn.No.725 of 1996 [9] be compensated in terms of money. A sum of Rs.2500/- is directed to be deposited by each petitioner by way of compensation to the victim Darshan Singh son of Sardara Singh, resident of village Bharana in the trial Court within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed qua the defaulting petitioner who will be sent to the jail to serve the remaining sentence. On deposit being so made, the trial Court shall disburse the same to Darshan Singh complainant forthwith. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 11th January, 2008 (HARBANS LAL) gsv JUDGE