Crl. Revision No.1438 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1438 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2010 Charanjit Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioners Charanjit Singh and Chamkaur Singh had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, under sections 323, 324, 452 read with Section 34 IPC and both of them were sentenced to undergo RI for three months under Section 323 IPC, one year under Section 324 IPC and one year under Section 452 IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioners preferred appeal against the judgment of their conviction/sentence, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 5th May, 2010. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of both the courts below, the petitioners have approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. Crl. Revision No.1438 of 2010 2 Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioners is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 5th January, 1998, police of Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana received information that injured Sohan Singh was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Accordingly, police officials went to that hospital to record his statement. However, on that day and even on the next two days, the doctor on duty declared Sohan Singh unfit to make statement. Thereafter, on 9th January, 1998, ASI Surinder Singh recorded statement of injured Sohan Singh after the doctor declared him fit to make statement. He stated that on 3rd January, 1998, he alongwith his wife Mohinder Kaur, son Balwinder Singh, daughter Jaswinder Kaur and relative Amandeep Singh was present in his house. At around 5.00 P.M. the telephone in the home rang and Balwinder Singh attended to it. On telephone, a girl requested him that she wanted to talk to Rano alias Jaswinder Kaur daughter of the complainant. Balwinder Singh handed over the receiver to Rano alias Jaswinder Kaur. Actually, on the other side Charanjit Singh alias Channa was speaking and told her to meet her in night. His daughter signaled Balwinder Singh and handed over the receiver to him. Accused Charanjit Singh alias Channa again repeated his words unaware of the fact that telephone had been picked up by Balwinder Singh. The voice was immediately recognized by Balwinder Singh and he asked Charanjit Singh alias Channa to behave properly. Crl. Revision No.1438 of 2010 3 Charanjit Singh alias Channa abused Balwinder Singh on telephone. On this, Balwinder Singh went to the house of Charanjit Singh to lodge protest. However, Charanjit Singh @ Channa again abused Balwinder Singh and threatened that he will be taught a lesson. Then Balwinder Singh came back. At about 5.30 PM accused Charanjit Singh armed with gandasi, accused Chamkaur Singh armed with gandasi, their brother Rajinder Singh (now deceased) armed with dang and accused Baldev Singh armed with axe entered the house of complainant and Baldev Singh raised Lalkara that they be not spared. Immediately, Chamkaur Singh gave two blows with blunt side of gandasi which hit below the left eye and front side of nose of complainant Sohan Singh. Then accused Charanjit Singh @ Channa gave gandasi blow with its sharp side which hit on the left side of nose and lip of complainant. Charanjit Singh alias Channa gave another gandasi blow which landed on left cheek of the complainant. Rajinder Singh caught the complainant from his hair and threw him on the ground. In the meantime, Mohinder Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur, Balwinder Singh and Amandeep Singh intervened, on which Rajinder Singh gave dang blow on forehead and left side of forehead of complainant Sohan Singh. Then Baldev Singh gave two blows with blunt side of axe which hit on the right forehead and back of the complainant. In the meantime Charanjit Singh gave two gandasi blows on the person of Amandeep Singh. The family members of the complainant raised hue and cry on which Satwant Singh neighbourer reached the spot and then all the accused ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. Crl. Revision No.1438 of 2010 4 Then Sohan Singh was taken to hospital where he was medico-legally examined. On the basis of this statement, a ruqa was sent to the police station and formal FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie case under Sections 325, 324, 323, 452 read with Section 34 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/ petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioners, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. They examined two witnesses in their defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them and sentenced them as already indicated above. The appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 5.5.2010. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them. The appellate court has also rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by both Crl. Revision No.1438 of 2010 5 the courts below. The conviction of the petitioner is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioners are poor persons and main bread winner of their family and not previous convict. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners shall be reduced to the period already undergone by them but the petitioners are burdened with a fine of Rs.55,000/- i.e. Rs.27,500/- each, to be paid as compensation to the injured Sohan Singh. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioners shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 20.7.2010 'rajpal'