Crl. Revision No. 1210 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1210 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: November 15, 2011 Ajit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. JS Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was made to face trial for offences under Sections 336/337/338 IPC. He was convicted for offences under Sections 336/338 IPC by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for his conviction under Section 338 IPC and one month rigorous imprisonment under Section 336 IPC. The prosecution, thus, concededly was for an offence of rash and negligent act leading to grievous injury to the complainant. The case of the prosecution is that Karam Singh- complainant was working as labourer/helper with the accused/petitioner, who was a mason. The job of cement plastering was going on in Gurdwara Duladi Sahib. The complainant had Crl. Revision No. 1210 of 2005 -2- requested the petitioner to pay him the wages for 20 days for which he had worked with him. This led to an altercation. In this background, the petitioner is stated to have picked a plastic mug and threw the liquid lying in that mug on the face of the complainant. The liquid fell into the right eye of the complainant. It was acid and gave burning sensation. The victim raised alarm. The accused-petitioner statedly ran away from the spot. The brother of the complainant Raj Kumar took him to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, where the victim is stated to have lost his eye sight of the right eye. The complainant-victim was also referred for treatment to P.G.I., Chandigarh, where his right eye was removed. The petitioner was arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented against him. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The petitioner made a statement pleading false implication. The petitioner has been sentenced as noticed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that though there are arguable points inasmuch as in his first statement recorded by the Head Constable, the complainant himself has stated before the Police that this incident was happened due to accidental, but subsequently after one month the present FIR was lodged making the allegation as contained therein. Counsel submits that he will be satisfied if some leniency is shown in the award of punishment as the petitioner has already undergone the agony while facing the trial. The prosecution itself has not made any allegation of intentional act on the part of the petitioner. He was prosecuted for Crl. Revision No. 1210 of 2005 -3- rash and negligent act, which would in itself mean that there was no allegation of any intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioner for commission of this offence. The petitioner was simply charged for offence under Section 338 IPC, which would exclude intention or knowledge. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that it was not an intentional act and only happened due to some rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner. This aspect does not appear to be in serious dispute. Though the act has resulted in serious consequences, the petitioner ultimately would remain responsible for causing this unintentional incident. The sentence of one year as imposed, apparently seems to be on higher side. The case for showing some leniency, therefore, is made out. Out of the sentence imposed, the petitioner has undergone two and half months sentence. Presently, the petitioner is on bail. Taking a lenient view and considering the fact that it is an old case and that the petitioner has faced protracted proceedings, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The revision otherwise is dismissed. The fine as imposed, however, shall stand enhanced to `5,000/-, which shall be paid to the complainant. In case, the enhanced fine is not deposited, the sentence imposed shall stand revived. November 15, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE