Criminal Revision No.335 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 335 of 2001 Date of Decision: April 16, 2009 Surtal and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.G.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharath Sarup,AAG Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted under Sections 323,325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 8.6.2000 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Safidon. Vide order dated 9.6.2000, petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jind vide judgment dated Criminal Revision No.335 of 2001 2 6.2.2001. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “Prosecution case, in brief, runs like this that on 3.9.1993 on receipt of rukka alongwith M.L.R. pertaining to Hukmi, Balbir Singh Head Constable reached Civil Hospital Safidan and recorded the statement of the injured-complainant, namely, Hukmi who stated that he was employed as siri by Hawa Singh who had taken the land on lease near the boundary of the village. That land was belonging to Dharmu resident of Mowana. The complainant used to look after those fields. On 1.9.1993 Hawa Singh and Surtal had some exchange of words and the complainant was also present at that time. Both the parties were separated at that time. At about 7.00 am on 3.9.1993, when the complainant had come to look after the field known as "Mowana- wala", Satbir also came with him and he also looks after the field of Hawa Singh. Complainant set the tubewell in running condition and the complainant started warding off sparrows from the bajra field. In the meantime, Surtal armed with jeli and Rajesh armed with lathi came. Surtal remarked that he (complainant) should be taught a lesson for joining the dispute which had taken place on 1.9.92. On this, Surtal gave jeli blow which hit left leg of the complainant, who raised alarm and on hearing the same, Satbir rushed to the spot and intervened. Injured was removed to the hospital where he was medico-legally examined. On this report, case was registered and investigated. Accused were Criminal Revision No.335 of 2001 3 arrested. After completion of investigation, present challan was put up." Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 has since died on 16.9.2008. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Accordingly, petition qua petitioner No.1 stands abated. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner No.2 under Sections 323/325/34 IPC but has submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1993 and the petitioner No.2 is facing the criminal proceedings since then. Petitioner No.2 has already undergone more than one month of actual sentence. The grievous injury was not attributed to petitioner No.2. Petitioner No. 2 was not a previous convict. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment of petitioner No.2 is liable to be reduced to already undergone by him. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner No.2 under Section 323/325//34 IPC is maintained. However, his sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by him This petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge April 16, 2009 arya