CRR NO. 1811 OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR NO. 1811 OF 2011 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 17.10.2011 Mann Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. B. S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is a revision against the judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, vide which the sentence of the petitioner under Section 326 IPC was reduced from 3 years to 1 year, in view of compromise between the parties. Briefly stated, the accused was sent to stand trial under Sections 326/34 IPC along with co-accused Surjit Singh. CRR NO. 1811 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- In nutshell, the allegations of the prosecution are that there was a dispute of water khal. On 14.07.2011, Maan Singh demolished the Khal leading to the land of complainant to the extent of 5/6 karams. On 16.07.2001, the accused demolished the whole khal. On 17.07.2001, at about 6:30 PM, the complainant along with his wife Bhajan Kaur went to the field in order to give answer to the call of nature and thereafter, they were returning to home. At about 7:00 PM, when they reached in the field of village near the house of Sewa Singh, Maan Singh armed with Kirpan and Surjit Singh @ Sonu empty handed were standing there. Sonu caught hold the complainant from his hairs and in the meantime, Maan Singh gave Kirpan blow which hit on the wrist of right hand of the complainant. Ultimately, the injury attributed to the petitioner was found to be grevious. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. On presentation of the challan, copies of same were supplied to the accused free of costs, as envisaged in Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 326 IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined Dr.Guriqbal Singh as PW-1, Shiv Singh as PW-2, Rajbir Kaur as PW-3, Gurdev Singh as PW-4, HC Bhupinder Singh as PW-5, SI Harjit Singh as PW-6, Gurdev Singh, Patwari CRR NO. 1811 OF 2011 (O&M) -3- as PW-7, Harbans Singh as PW-8 and closed the prosecution evidence. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them to which they pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, found both the accused guilty for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced them as under :- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Sr. Name Offence Imprisonment No. Under Section -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- 01. Mann Singh 326 IPC RI for 3 years and fine of ` 1500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 45 days. 02. Surjit Singh 326/34 RI for 1 year and fine of ` 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 15 days. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 10.07.2007 passed by Mrs. Jaswinder Sheemar, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, petitioner Mann Singh CRR NO. 1811 OF 2011 (O&M) -4- preferred the appeal. The Appellate Court observed that since there is a compromise between the parties, but concession of probation cannot be granted and as such, the sentence of petitioner Mann Singh was reduced to one year from three years. The sentence of fine of ` 1500/- was maintained. In default thereof, further RI for 45 days was also maintained. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 27.07.2011 and judgment dated 10.07.2007, the present revision petition has been filed. Custody certificate has been placed on file. As per custody certificate, Mann Singh petitioner has undergone incarnation for a period of 3 months and 25 days as on 13.10.2011 out of the substantive sentence of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, but has submitted that since compromise has been arrived at between the parties and in view of authority “Amarjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab” 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 736, a lenient view be taken in respect of quantum of sentence. The factum of compromise has not been disputed. Otherwise also, the Appellate Court has observed that the matter has been compromised. The petitioner has already undergone incarnation for a period of about 4 months. CRR NO. 1811 OF 2011 (O&M) -5- So, keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner Mann Singh. However, the sentence of fine stands maintained. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar, as costs of litigation. Disposed of. OCTOBER 17, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE