Crl. Revision No.3257 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.3257 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.12.2010 Ramesh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Goyal, AAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Petitioners and their co-accused Santosh had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Charkhi Dadri, under sections 323, 325, 452 read with Section 34 IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 25th August, 2008 and order of sentence dated 30th August, 2008 and sentenced as under:- U/S 323 IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. U/S 325 IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. U/S 452 IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners and their co-accused Santosh preferred appeal against the judgment of their conviction/order of sentence, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Charkhi Dadri. The Additional Crl. Revision No.3257 of 2010 2 Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani, however, allowed the appeal filed by co- accused Santosh acquitting her of the charge against her, but the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed, vide judgment dated 2nd December, 2010. The sentence was, however, reduced and accused (petitioners herein) were sentenced as under:- U/S 323 IPC - To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for ten days. U/S 325 IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for fifteen days. U/S 452 IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for fifteen days. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the court below, the petitioners have approached this court through the instant Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgment of conviction. He states that he is conscious that scope in the revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated or re-evaluated. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioners is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Crl. Revision No.3257 of 2010 3 Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 27th November, 1997, complainant Murti Devi lodgbed a complaint with the police on the allegations that she is resident of village Kheri Bura and is a house wife. Her husband is working as clerk in Government High School, Loharwara. She is having one daughter who is married. She is also having three sons. The elder son Ramesh is serving in Army, younger to him, namely Anil is serving in SSB and her yougest son Rajesh is doing JBT course in Loharu. It was further alleged that at about 4.00 A.M. on that day, the complainant was working in her house and her daughter-in-law Smt. Avni was stitching clothes. In the meantime, accused Santosh came to their house and started abusing her thereby by saying that despite the complaint having been made to the Sarpanch of the village, her pet dog would not be tethered, who will move freely. After some time, Shree Lal, husband of co-accused Santosh alongwith his son Ramesh reached there. Ramesh was armed with a lathi whereas Shree Lal was having a pointed object in his hand and he gave its blow to the complainant. When the complaint tried to save herself, the blow hit on the little finger of her left hand and it started bleeding. Thereafter, Ramesh gave a lathi blow on the left hand finger of the complainant. When Avni tried to rescue her mother-in-law (Murti Devi), accused Ramesh lifted a stone and threw the same aiming at Avni which caused injuries on her teeth and lips. In the meantime, PWs Satbir and Shree Ram reached at the spot and on seeing them, the accused fled away from the spot. At that very moment, Crl. Revision No.3257 of 2010 4 Rajesh, son of the complainant, reached there from Loharu after attending his JBT course. On seeing him, accused Ramesh gave a lathi blow on his right wrist and thereafter they fled away. All the injured persons were taken to Civil Hospital, Dadri for treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.476 dated 27.11.1997 was registered. After completion of investigation, challan against the petitioners and co-accused Santosh was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie case under Sections 323, 325, 452 read with Section 34 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioners, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and closed the evidence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. They, however, did not produce any evidence in their defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioners and co-accused Smt. Santosh guilty of the charge framed against them and sentenced them as already indicated above. In appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 2nd December, 2010, accepted the appeal qua Santosh by acquitting her, but dismissed the same qua the petitioners. Crl. Revision No.3257 of 2010 5 On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the court below. The conviction of the petitioners is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He has, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the grounds that the petitioners are main bread winner of their family and not a previous convict. He has stated that he is conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Learned State counsel has placed on record replies by way of affidavits of Satvinder Kumar, Acting Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, according to which the petitioners have undergone custody of 22 days as on 23.12.2010 i.e. 23 days till today. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners shall be reduced to the period already undergone by them but the petitioners are burdened with a fine of Rs.20,000/- (i.e. Rs.10,000/- each), to be paid as compensation to the complainant/injured Murti Devi. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the Crl. Revision No.3257 of 2010 6 stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioners shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE December 24, 2010 'rajpal'