IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 Date of Decision: 10.03.2009 Gurmit Singh @ Pamma and another Petitioners Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.A.S.Virk, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State …. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) It was allegation against the petitioners that on 23.10.1995, they along with on Jagtar Singh @ Babbi, have caused injuries to Sukhdev Singh, Jagjit Singh and Gurdip Singh. Vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1998, they were convicted for commission of offences charged against them. Following sentence was awarded to them:- Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 2 (i) Accused Jagtar Singh stands sentenced to undergo R.I. for the period of one year for the offence under Section 326 IPC and he is further burdened with Rs.400/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, accused will further undergo R.I. for one month more. Accused Gurmit Singh and Malkit Singh stands sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offence under Section 326/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.400/- each and in default of payment of fine each accused will further undergo R.I. for one month more. (ii) Accused Jagtar Singh further stands sentenced for the offence under Section 325 IPC to undergo R.I. for 9 months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, he will further undergo R.I. for 15 days. His co-accused namely Gurmit Singh and Malkit Singh stands sentenced for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC to undergo R.I. for nine months each accused and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine each accused will further undergo R.I. for 15 days more. (iii) Accused Jagtar Singh further stands sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months, his co-accused namely Gurmit Singh and Malkit Singh sentenced under Section 324/34 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months. Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 3 (iv) Accused Malkit Singh stands sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months and his co-accused Gurmit Singh and Jagtar Singh stands sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 324/34 IPC. (v) Further accused Malkit Singh stands sentenced for the offence under Section 323 IPC to undergo R.I. for three months and his co-accused Gurmit Singh and Jagtar Singh are sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months each for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC. (vi) Accused Gurmit Singh stands sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months and his co-accused Malkit Singh and Jagtar Singh stands sentenced under Section 324/34 IPC to undergo R.I. for six months. They went in appeal, wherein they were acquitted so far as commission of offence under Section 326 IPC is concerned, however, conviction under Sections 325, 324, 323/34 IPC was maintained vide judgment dated 1.4.2002. Hence, this revision petition. FIR was recorded at the instance of Jagjit Singh (PW1). In his statement he has deposed as under:- “that he is resident of village Akalgarh and doing the service in army. They are three brothers and doing farming work jointly. Yesterday night i.e. on 23.10.95 at about 8.00/ 9.00 Gurdip Singh son of Kaur Singh Mistry came at the house of the Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 4 complainant for doing white wash in their house. Complainant further stated that his elder brother Sukhdev Singh accompanied the above said Gurdip Singh to drop him at his house. When the brother of the complainant namely Sukhdev Singh and Gurdip Singh reached near the house of Babbi Singh son of Jit Singh majbi, there Babbi Singh, Pamma Singh and Geeta Singh all sons of Jeet Singh were standing near their house and of Mander Singh having Gandasas and dangs. On seeing the brother of the complainant accused Babbi Singh extorted Lalkara by saying that today Sukhdev Singh should not go escaped. He should be taught lesson for falsely implicating in theft case. Complainant further stated that on hearing the lalkara he also ran to the place of occurrence. He stated that in the meantime accused Babby Singh gave gandas blow towards the head of Sukhdev Singh which hit on the right side of his head. Pamma Singh gave blow with his gandasa blow towards Sukhdev Singh and in defence Sukhdev Singh raised his left arm and the blow of gandasa hit on his left arm. Gurdip Singh started raising noise by saying NA MARO NA MARO and fell on Sukhdev Singh. Complainant further stated that he also fell on Sukhdev Singh to rescue him. Complainant further stated that when they were lying on Sukhdev Singh, accused Geeta Singh gave blow with dang on the arm and accused Babbi Singh and Gurmit Singh gave blow on head which hit on the left side of his head. Complainant further stated that when they were rescuing Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 5 them also the accused gave other injuries with their weapons on the person of Sukhdev Singh. He further stated that if they have not rescued his brother Sukhdev Singh accused might have caused more injuries. Accused ran away with their weapons.” After recording FIR, the investigating officer went to the spot. In the meantime, the injured were medico-legally examined by Dr.M.L.Aswani (PW4). On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. The petitioners –accused were charge sheeted, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced six witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. However, they led no evidence in defence. On conclusion of evidence as produced by the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as found mentioned in earlier part of this order. Petitioners partly succeeded in appeal. At the time of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that main accused, namely, Jagtar Singh @ Babbi, who was substantively punished for commission of offences under Sections 326, 325, 324 IPC, has already undergone sentence awarded to him. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced for the above said offences with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to convince this Court so far as merits of the case are concerned. Vivid eye witness account has been given by Jagjit Singh (PW1), Sukhdev Singh (PW2) and Gurdip Singh Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 6 (PW3). Oral testimony has been corroborated by Dr.M.L.Aswani, who has medico legally examined the above said injured witnesses. Otherwise also, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611, has opined that in criminal revision, scope to interfere in the judgments passed by the Courts below, is very limited. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were the first offenders. After their conviction in this case, they have not involved themselves into any other crime of the like nature. Now they are living life of disciplined citizens. He has further stated that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1995. The petitioners are facing criminal prosecution for the last more than 13 years. In the process they have suffered mentally and financially as well. He has further stated that the petitioners and the injured were co-villagers. By this time, the parties might have forgotten about the sad incident and if at this stage, they are sent behind the bars, it will revive old enmity between them and will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village. He prayed that leniency be shown to the petitioners, who are young and the only bread winners for their families. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that purpose of criminal law justice system is not only to punish an erring individual but also to give an opportunity to him to reform himself. It is apparent from the records that the petitioners are suffering agony of pending litigation since 1996. They were young at the time when accident had taken place and the only bread winners of their families. They have already Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 7 undergone more than 4 months of actual sentence. Contention of counsel for the petitioners that if at this stage, they are sent behind the bars, not only they but their entire families will suffer, appears to be correct. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, observed as under:- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity Criminal Revision No.746 of 2002 8 to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal 1998 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Stae of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh 2002(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600. In that case, in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted, however, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of judgments mentioned above, conviction of the petitioners is upheld, however, sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the already undergone by them. With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. 10.03.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge