Crl. Rev. No. 804 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 804 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision:- 22.2.2011 Harbhajan Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The present petitioners/accused- Harbhajan Singh and Hari Singh, along with Amrik Singh, Satnam Singh and Gurdarshan Singh, were charged for the offences under Sections 323, 325/149, 148 and 341 IPC and were tried for those offences by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. They were convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 325/149 and 148 IPC and were acquitted of the offence under Section 341 IPC, vide judgment dated 11.9.2003. They were sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Under Sections Sentence of imprisonment 1 148 IPC Each convict is sentenced, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of one year. 2 323 read with Section 149 IPC Convicts Amrik Singh, Gurdarshan Singh and Harbhajan Singh are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment, for a period of one year, whereas convicts Hari Singh and Satnam Singh are sentenced to undergo R.I for six months each. Crl. Rev. No. 804 of 2005 (O&M) -2- Sr. No. Under Sections Sentence of imprisonment 3 325 read with Section 149 IPC Convict Hari Singh is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of the sum of Rs.2,000/-. In case of default to deposit the fine he shall further undergo R.I for a period of two months whereas remaining convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and they are fined in the sum of Rs.500/- each. In case of default to deposit the fine they shall further R.I for a period of one month. As per the prosecution version, on 26.10.2008 at about 8/8.30 p.m Davinder Singh-complainant PW1, along with Bhinder Singh, Rupinder Singh PW2 and other boys, was bursting crackers in the Dharamshala of the village. In the meanwhile, Satnam Singh-accused, while under the influence of alcohol, came to that place and asked them why they were bursting the crackers at that place and asked them to go to their respective houses. He caught hold the complainant by his neck and slapped him on his face. He was saved from that accused by Bhinder Singh and Rupinder Singh. At that time Satnam Singh-accused was accompanied by Gurdarshan Singh, who was asked by Satnam Singh to call their father. After sometime he brought his father Hari Singh and his brother Harbhajan Singh and Amrik Singh to that place. In their presence Satnam Singh abused the complainant, upon which he caught hold of him and gave a slap on his face. However, Bhinder Singh and Rupinder Singh intervened and thereafter he along with them started towards his tubewell. When they reached near the house of Dev Singh, they were encircled by the accused and at that time all of them except Hari Singh were armed with sticks whereas Hari Singh was armed with iron rod. Hari Singh gave a blow with that iron road on the Crl. Rev. No. 804 of 2005 (O&M) -3- right leg below the knee. Harbhajan Singh gave a blow with his stick on his head. Gurdarshan Singh gave a stick blow on his left leg and Amrik Singh gave a stick blow on his right elbow. Thereafter Satnam Singh gave a number of blows with his stick. He raised an alarm and was saved from the accused by Bhinder Singh and Rupinder Singh. From the spot he was removed to his house and then to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he was medically examined by Dr. Beant Singh PW4. The injuries found on his person were detailed in the M.L report Ex.PW5/A. On 27.10.2000 Bhag Singh SI, on receipt of the information regarding the admission of the injured into hospital, went to that place and gave application Ex.PW3/A to enquire about the fitness of the injured, who was declared fit by the doctor to make a statement vide Ex.PW3/A. Then he recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. After recording his police proceedings he sent the same to the police station and FIR Ex.PW3/C was recorded on the basis thereof. The SI went to the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan with correct marginal notes. Injuries on the person of the complainant were subjected to radiological examination and on the basis of the X-ray report injury No.1 was declared as grievous by the doctor, vide his endorsement Ex.PW5/C, made on the application Ex.PW3/F moved by the SI for obtaining that opinion. In the course of investigation, the accused were arrested on 29.10.2000. Amrik Singh and Harbhajan Singh produced sticks whereas Hari Singh produced one iron rod before the SI, which were taken into possession vide a recovery memo. After the completion of investigation, the challan was put in before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, who after the conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. Crl. Rev. No. 804 of 2005 (O&M) -4- The accused preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence. The appeal was decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who acquitted Satnam Singh and Gurdarshan Singh – accused and upheld conviction of the other accused. Amrik Singh-accused was released on probation on good conduct under Section 360 Cr.P.C whereas the present petitioners/accused were sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Name of the accused Under Sections Sentence of imprisonment 1 Hari Singh 325 IPC 323 read with Section 34 IPC To undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo R.I for two months. To undergo R.I for eight months 2 Harbhajan Singh 325 read with Section 34 IPC 323 IPC To undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo R.I for two months To undergo R.I for 1-1/2 year The present revision petition has been preferred against that conviction and sentence. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused did not challenge the conviction so recorded by the appellate Court. However, he challenged the order of sentence and submitted that petitioners/accused have already undergone imprisonment for a period of two months and the sentence so imposed upon them be reduced to the period already undergone. Learned State counsel has submitted that if the sentence is to be reduced then suitable compensation be awarded to the complainant/injured for the injuries suffered by him. The benefit of probation was not extended to these Crl. Rev. No. 804 of 2005 (O&M) -5- petitioners/accused by the appellate Court as both of them were found to be more than 21 years of age at the time of commission of the offence and by taking into consideration that the offence under Section 325 IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The petitioners/accused are standing their protracted trial from the last more than 10 years. The dispute arose between the parties only on the minor matter of firing of the crackers. Both the parties belong to the same village. The injury caused by the accused which falls under the mischeif of Section 325 IPC, was found on the leg of the complainant/injured, which is not a vital part of the body. All the other injuries were found to be simple. They are not previous convicts nor it is the case of the State that after the commission of the said offence, they were involved in any other criminal case. Keeping in veiw all these circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the petitioners/accused is reduced to the period already undergone by them. They are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to the complainant/injured for the injuries suffered by him. That compensation is to be paid/deposited in the trial Court within a period of three months of passing of this order and in default thereof they will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Records be returned forthwith. February 22, 2011 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge