Crl. Revision No. 2253 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2253 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: April 25, 2011 Mahabir and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. NS Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. PR Yadav, Advocate, for the complainant. GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 21425 of 2011 Heard. Crl. Misc. is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl. Revision 2253 of 2005 The petitioners/accused, Mahabir, Daya Ram and Kamlesh, have preferred this revision against the judgment dated 1.12.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by them against the judgment dated 19.10.2004 passed by JMIC, Mohindergarh, convicting them for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them as under:- Crl. Revision No. 2253 of 2005 2 Section Sentence Fine In default 323 IPC Six months ` 500/- 15 days 325 IPC Two years ` 500/- 15 days Now the present revision has been preferred against that conviction and sentence. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Yad Ram-complainant (PW-4) and his three brothers had joint agricultural land but were separate in residence and cultivation. They were cultivating separate parcels of the joint land and in some part of the complainant's part of land, he had sown millet crop. On 12.6.1996 at about 10 a.m., he was sowing the millet crop in the remaining part of his land, when the accused came there with a tractor and destroyed the millet crop already sown by him. When they were challenged not to enter his part of the land, Mahabir gave a blow with his kulhari (axe) on the back side of his head and the second blow was given by that accused with the axe in the middle of his head. Daya Ram was holding a lathi in his hands and gave a blow on the palm of his left hand and the second blow was given by that accused on the fingers of his right hand. When his wife Shakuntala (PW-3) came ahead to save him, she was also given injuries by these accused. His son Mahender Singh was also given injuries by these accused. After causing injuries, the accused escaped from the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant and the other injured were removed to CHC Kanina, where they were medically examined by Dr. Ram Niwas (PW-6), who found one injury on the person of Mahender, four injuries each on the person of Yad Ram and Shakuntla, which were detailed in ML Reports Ex. PW6/A, PW6/B and PW6/C Crl. Revision No. 2253 of 2005 3 respectively. About the admission of the injured in the hospital, ruqa was sent to the Police Station and on receipt thereof, Kamal Singh, ASI (PW-9) came to the hospital and made an application (Ex. PW9/A) to inquire about the condition of the injured to make their statements. After Yad Ram was declared fit to make the statement, he recorded his statement Ex. PW4/A and also recorded his police proceedings Ex. PW9/B. After coming back to the police station, he recorded a report Ex. PW9/C in the DDR. On 18.6.1996, FIR Ex. PW9/D was recorded against the accused under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. On 20.6.1996, Yad Ram was radiologically examined by Dr. Narveer Singh (PW-8), who found fracture of second metacarpal and proximal phalanx of little finger. On the basis of his report Ex. PW8/A, injuries on the person of Yad Ram were declared as grievous and offence under Section 325 IPC was added against the accused. Rough site plan was prepared by the ASI, after inspecting the place of occurrence. In the course of investigation, all the accused were arrested and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 506/34 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Parkash (PW-1), Kurda Ram (PW-2), Shakuntla (PW-3), Yad Ram (PW-4), Mahender Singh (PW-5), Dr. Ram Niwas (PW-6), Suraj Bhan, Inspector (PW-7), Dr. Narveer Singh (PW-8) and Kamal Singh, ASI (PW-9). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the trial court and Crl. Revision No. 2253 of 2005 4 their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their innocence and false implication. They were called upon to enter on their defence but they did not produce any evidence in their defence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused did not challenge the conviction of the accused and confined his submissions to the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon them. He submitted that the complainant party has entered into a compromise with the accused and after resolving their dispute, they have decided to live amicably. They are closely related to each other and in view of the compromise, the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon them be reduced to the period already undergone. He has referred to the compromise, which has already been placed on record and which has been admitted to be correct by the learned counsel for the complainant party. The petitioners/accused are standing their protracted trial since the year 1996. The dispute between the parties has already been resolved. As per the custody certificate placed on record, by the learned State counsel, the petitioners/accused have already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of two months and seven days. Keeping in view the above said facts, the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon them, is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the condition that they shall pay compensation of ` 5,000/- to each of the injured for the injuries suffered by them and they shall Crl. Revision No. 2253 of 2005 5 be liable to pay the same jointly and severally. The same is to be paid/deposited in the trial court within three months of this order, failing which this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed. April 25, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE Note:- Whether to be referred to reporter No