Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2002 Date of decision: 1-2-2010 Tohla Singh and another ......... Petitioners Vs State of Punjab .........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri Binderjit Singh Advocate, for the petitioners Shri Abhishek Chautala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.6.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by Tohla Singh, Jagraj Singh and Mohinder Singh accused against the judgment /order of sentence dated 16.12.2000 rendered by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo vide which he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- I.P.C. each under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine 200/- each under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months and also sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. with further Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2002 2 direction that the sentences shall run concurrently and acquitted the accused Mohinder Singh of the charged offences. The facts in brief are that on 6.5.1998, Jasmail Kaur PW made statement in the terms that there was a dispute of her husband with his elder brother Tohla Singh regarding the land. Gurjant Singh got effected the partition between them. Then her husband had withdrawn all the civil cases pending in the court. Tohla Singh accused resiled from compromise. On that day, at about 7.30 A.M. there was turn of water in the fields of her husband. She alongwith her husband Billu Singh and her son Gandhi Singh had gone to their fields for irrigation purpose. After sometime, Tohla Singh armed with kulhari, Jagraj Singh alias Phallu armed with a 'ghope' came there. Balbir Singh, younger son of Tohla Singh armed with a 'kasia' reached there. Tohla Singh stated that he will not allow them to take the canal water and he started abusing. Billu Singh told Tohla Singh that dispute has already been settled by Sarpanch and he(Billu Singh) had turn of water earlier. Tohla Singh and Jagraj Singh started giving beatings to Billu Singh. Tohla Singh gave kulhari blow on the backside of Billu Singh's head, followed by another blow. Billu Singh fell down. Accused Jagraj Singh and Tohla Singh dealt blows with their respective weapons on the person of Billu Singh, which landed at his face, head and on the back. Jasmail Kaur stepped forward. Accused Billu Singh gave kulhari blow on her head and she fell on her husband. Jagraj Singh accused dealt 'ghope' blow on her right wrist. The accused also gave three dang blows on the shoulder, right wrist and left arm. On being raised alarm, accused decamped from the spot with the respective weapons. The case qua this occurrence stood already registered at the instance of the accused party. This cross version was Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2002 3 investigated in the same F.I.R. The accused were arrested. The charge- sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused Tohla Singh, Jagraj Singh and Mohinder Singh were charged under Sections 325/324/323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Tohla Singh and Jagraj Singh as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they went up in appeal, which was dismissed. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, they have preferred this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Realizing that he would not be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On analyzing and scrutinizing the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings returned by the both the Courts below. Consequently, conviction is maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1998. It is also worth mentioning here that this is a case of version and cross version and the case was registered at the instance of the petitioners and that being so, the Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2002 4 sentence may be slashed to the already undergone. I have well considered this submission. Herein, as per the custody certificate taken on record, the petitioners have undergone 2 months of the actual sentence. The petitioners while on bail during the pendency of this revision did not make misuse of this opportunity. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of both the petitioners inflicted under all the sections is reduced to the already undergone (2 months each). The fine imposed under all the sections alongwith their default clause is maintained. With this modification in the order of sentence, this revision fails and is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE February 2, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No