Crl. Revision No.2205 of 2005 /1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2205 of 2005 Date of Decision: August 17, 2010 Khiali and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.MK Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.11.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”) whereby judgment and order, dated 18.12.1999, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) convicting the petitioners was upheld and the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.250/- each for the Crl. Revision No.2205 of 2005 /2/ offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days; rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.250/- each for the offence under Section 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in paras 2,3 and 4 of the Appellate Court judgment, are as under: “On 14.9.1994 after receipt of an information regarding the admission of injured Chhannu and Billu in GH, Bawal, ASI Dharam Singh accompanied by other police officials immediately reached to the hospital and sought the opinion of the doctor concerned regarding the fitness of both the injured. The injured Billu was opined not to be fit to give the statement. However, injured Chhannu was opined to be fit to give his statement. So his statement was recorded alleging therein that he was resident of village Bidawas and he had two other brothers namely Bhagmal and Kokal. All the three brothers had been cultivating the land of their respective shares for the Crl. Revision No.2205 of 2005 /3/ last 30 years. As the complainant Chhannu was issueless so he had been cultivating his share of land with his brother Kokal and about one month prior to the occurrence, he had alienated 10 acres of land of his share to his nephew namely Ram Kishan and Ranbir sons of Kokal as they had been looking after him. Due to this alienation of his share of land, his other brother Bhagmal and his sons had been nourishing a grudge against him. On the fateful day i.e. 14.9.1994, he along with his servant Billu and Chand Kaur w/o Ram Kishan, Bala and Bhateri daughters of Kokal and 6-7 female labourers were harvesting the Bajra crop and at about 9.30 a.m. Accused Bhagmal along with his sons namely Khiali, Duli Chand, Ran Singh, Dharam Singh, Tara Chand, Maya wife of Khiali, Bimla wife of Amar Singh, Kamla wife of Duli Chand, Surji w/o Bhagmal arrived there in a tractor of accused Bhagmal and they had been carrying lathis, jellis, Farsi etc. in their respective hands. Accused Ran Singh son of Bhagmal, who was carrying a Farsi, struck a blow with the same on the head of the complainant and other accused. Khiali inflicted a lathi blow towards the left side of his hip and other lathi blow on the left side near abdomen. After sustaining these blows, the complainant fell down and thereafter all the accused started inflicting injuries on the person of his servant. Billu and other labourers ran away from the fields. After hearing the shrieks of the injured, some other persons, who were working nearby Crl. Revision No.2205 of 2005 /4/ fields, arrived there and they rescued the injured from the clutches of the accused. While going from there in the tractor, all the accused also threatened the complainant and other persons with dire consequences and the injured were brought to GH, Bawal for medical treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of complainant/injured Chhannu, a case was registered against the accused. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan and after obtaining the opinion of the concerned doctor, he also recorded the statements of other injured. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The appellants were arrested and were bailed out. After completion of necessary formalities, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was put up in the Court.” 3. The accused-petitioners were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 148/323/325/506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses, viz., Dr.G.S.Yadav as PW1; Complainant-injured Chhannu Ram as PW2 and Head Constable Sabha Chand as PW3. 5. Statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations against them and pleaded their false implication. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners for a term as noticed in Crl. Revision No.2205 of 2005 /5/ para 1 of this judgment. 7. The present revision petition was admitted on 16.1.2006 and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail by this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioners as the offence stands proved. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 14.9.1994. Thus, the petitioners have suffered a protracted trial for about 16 years. As per custody certificate, all the petitioners have already undergone sentence for two months and eight days. They have not misused the concession of bail. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of more than 16 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Sections 148/323/325/506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Crl. Revision No.2205 of 2005 /6/ 13. To assuage the feeling of wrong done by the petitioners, the complainant deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- each besides the fine already imposed by the learned Trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of fine of Rs.2 lacs, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- shall go to the State as litigation expenses. 14. In case, the petitioners fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 14.11.2005 and that of the Trial Court dated 18.12.1999 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 17, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No