Criminal Revision No.2318 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2318 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 29, 2009 Gurbans Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vivek Goel,Advocate, for Mr.H.C.Rahi,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 326/325/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 20.11.1996 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. Vide order of even date, petitioner-Harjinder Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 326 IPC, whereas, petitioners-Gurbans Singh, Bhagwant Singh, Jatinder Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- Criminal Revision No.2318 of 2002 2 each under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and they were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and vide judgment dated 15.11.2002 the Sessions Judge, Faridkot partly accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants under Sections 326,325 read with Section 34 IPC and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court under Sections 324,323 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “The circumstances, under which the occurrence took place, as unfolded by Shinder Singh before ASI Tarlok Singh, Police Station Nihal Singh Wala on 7.5.1994, are that he has his maternal parents at village Didarewala. He goes every year to village Didarewala and brings the harvestor for harvesting the wheat crop. On the intervening night of 6/7.5.1994, he along with Boota Singh son of Jagroop Singh was going on Escort Tractor with the meals for Jagroop Singh and Darshan Singh, who were working in the fields. Thereafter at about 10.00 p.m. when they returned and reached near the house of Mukhtiar Singh, then accused Gurbans Singh and Bhagwant Singh sons of Sarmukh Singh armed with dangs. Jatinder Singh armed with a Kasauli and Harjindal Singh (since deceased) armed with a `Gandasa', came Criminal Revision No.2318 of 2002 3 from the opposite side and on seeing the complainant, they parked their tractor in front of the tractor of the complainant. The lights of the tractor of the complainant were on,whereas the lights of the tractor of the accused were off. That is why the complainant identified them. When the accused parked their tractor on the road, then the complainant brought his tractor on the kacha berm of the road. Thereafter, the accused started causing injuries to him and Boota Singh on the tractor itself. Harjinder Singh accused gave a gandasa blow on the right side of his head and two other gandasa blows on his left arm. Accused Gurbans Singh, Bhagwant Singh and Jatinder Singh also gave injuries to him with their respective-weapons, which struck on the little finger of left hand, left arm, on the back of both shoulders and on the little finger of his right hand. Boota Singh was also caused injuries by accused Gurbans Singh, Bhagwant Singh and Jatinder Singh on his right thigh, left arm--, right arm and on the back of neck. Then they raised hue & cry, which attracted Surjit Kaur wife of Jagroop Singh. She also raised noise. Then all the accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons on their tractor. Thereafter, the complainant and Boota Singh came to their house. Then, Surjit Kaur after making arrangement of conveyance shifted them to the hospital at Nihal Singh Wala, but no doctor was available in the hospital at Nihal Singh Wala.. Then they went to the hospital at Patto Hira Singh, but the doctor was not available there also. Thereafter, they contacted a private doctor at village Nihal Singh Wala, but he refused to attend them. Criminal Revision No.2318 of 2002 4 In the meantime, Jagroop Singh also arrived there and he took both the injured to the Civil Hospital, Badhni Kalan. The motive behind the occurrence is that Jagroop Singh and Darshan Singh have been cultivating the land of Baljit Singh for the last four years. There was a dispute between Baljit Singh and Gurbans Singh accused regarding the land and Gurbans Singh etc. were preventing the complainant party from entering into the said land. As such, they caused injuries to the complainant party. On the basis of aforesaid statement of Shinder Singh Ex.PW4/A, FIR Ex.PE was recorded against the accused at police station Nihal Singh Wala. The investigation commenced. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, site plan was prepared, medico-legal reports and x-ray reports were collected, tractor No.PBM-1523 make Asha alongwith its registration certificate was taken into possession and the recovery of the weapons of offence was effected. Consequently, after completing all the formalities, the accused were challaned by the police" Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 324/323/34 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners have already undergone more than two months of actual sentence. Petitioners have been facing criminal proceedings since the year 1994. They are not the previous convict. Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by the Criminal Revision No.2318 of 2002 5 learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 324/323/34 IPC is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. Petition stands disposed of. (Sabina) Judge April 29, 2009 arya