Criminal Revision No.1089 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1089 of 1989 Date of decision: February 06, 2008 Atma Singh and others. … Petitioners Versus Ajaib Singh and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Punia, Advocate for respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been filed by three accused namely Atma Singh, his brother Santokh Singh and Harbans Kaur wife of Atma Singh. They were tried in a private complaint instituted for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. In the present case, occurrence is said to have taken place on 29th May, 1984 at about 6.30 a.m. when complainant Harchand Singh and his nephew Ajaib Singh were working in their field. It is alleged that Atma Singh was armed with a Gandasa, Santokh Singh was armed with a Toki and Harbans Kaur was armed with a Dang. Upon a lalkara given by Atma Singh, Santokh Singh gave a Toki blow towards head of the complainant. Complainant raised his hand and injury was caused on the middle finger of his left hand. Atma Singh gave a Gandasa blow causing Criminal Revision No.1089 of 1989 2 injury on the left eye of the complainant, Harchand Singh. It is further alleged that Harbans Kaur gave Dang blow causing injury on left leg and back of right leg of the complainant. On the alarm raised by Ajaib Singh, accused are said to have decamped from the spot along with their weapons. Petitioners are convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Jagraon and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, they preferred their appeal. In the appeal, their sentence was reduced to nine months. It will be apposite here to reproduce para 27 of the Appellate Court below, whereby the sentence was reduced: “27. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Atma Singh, Santokh Singh and Harbans Kaur are convicted and sentenced as follows: Accused Atma Singh under Section 324 IPC for a period of six months RI and fine of Rs.250/- in default further RI for one month; six months RI and fine of Rs.500/- in default further RI two months; under Section 326/34 IPC, 3 months RI under Section 323/24 Indian Penal Code Santokh Singh under Section 326 IPC for nine months RI and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine to further undergo RI for three months; 324 IPC six months RI and fine of Rs.250/- in default to further RI for one month and under Section 323/34 IPC, three months RI. Harbans Kaur under Section 324/34 IPC for a period of four months RI and fine of Rs.250/- in default of fine one month RI; six months RI and fine of Rs.500/- in default of fine two months RI u/s 326/34 IPC; under Section 323 IPC six months Criminal Revision No.1089 of 1989 3 RI. Substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.” Harchand Singh injured himself had appeared before the trial Court and testified against the accused. He had suffered injuries. His evidence has been believed by the courts below. Finding of fact of two courts below are against the petitioners. In revisional Court, I cannot re- appreciate the evidence. In the present case, occurrence is said to have taken place on 29th May, 1984. A period of about 24 years is going to elapse. No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars. Taking the protracted trial into consideration and the fact that injuries were on the non-vital parts of the body, I reduce the sentence of the petitioners to already undergone. However sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10000/- qua each accused. It has been pointed out by Mr.Punia that injured Harchand Singh has died during the pendency of appeal and Ajaib Singh was impleaded as complainant. Mr.Punia has stated that the entire cost and charges of litigation have been borne out by Ajaib Singh who was substituted as a complainant being the nephew. The fine of Rs.30000/-, if gathered from three accused as cost of litigation shall accrue to Ajaib Singh complainant. Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall be considered as dismissal of the present revision petition. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 6, 2008. rps