Criminal Revision No234 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.234 of 2002 Date of Decision: May 11, 2009 Om Parkash and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General,Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 323/324/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 16.10.1998 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. Vide order of even date, petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323/34 IPC; to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 324/34 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each under Section 325/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.200/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 326/34 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar Criminal Revision No234 of 2002 2 vide judgment dated 24.1.2002. 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:- “Briefly stated the facts of this case are like this that appellants- accused Om Parkash and Raja Ram have been sent to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323,324,325,326/34 IPC by police station Adampur. It is further alleged that on 2.3.94 at about 7 p.m a medical ruqa regarding the admission of Rajender Parsad in Govt. Hospital,Adampur was received in Police Station Adampur on which ASI Ram Kumar went to the hospital for recording the statement of Rajender Parsad who made statement to the effect that he is resident of Shishwal and is agriculturist by profession. On 2.3.94 at about 12 p.m. he along with his brother Richhpal and father Biru Ram was going to his Dhani situated in the fields. When they reached near the field of Hazari son of Khayali Ram, both of the appellant- accused came there. Om Parkash was having an axe in his hand while Raja Ram was having a lathi in his hand. They immediately raised Lalkara saying that they will teach them a lesson for causing injuries to Om Parkash. After that Om Parkash gave an axe blow on the right ear and left thigh. Raja Ram gave a lathi blow on the forehand and nose. They have also caused number of injuries on the body of Rajender Parsad. When he raised alarm, in the meantime, Richhpal and Biru Ram came there and saved him from the clutches of the accused. Accused fled away along with Criminal Revision No234 of 2002 3 their weapons towards the village. After that, investigation was started. Statement of witnesses recorded. Site plan was prepared. After completion of the investigation, report under Sectin 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and challan was put in the Court.” Nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. On the last date also, nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. I have gone through the record of the case with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the State. In the present case, the occurrence has taken place on 2.3.1994 at about 12.00 P.M. PW2 Rajinder Parsad has deposed that on the day of occurrence, he was attacked by Om Parkash armed with `kulhari' and Raja Ram armed with `lathi'. Both the accused inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. Statement of the complainant is duly corroborated by the eye witness-Richhpal (PW3) Dr.P.L.Jindal(PW1) medico legally exam,ined the complainant at 1.20 P.M. and found the following injuries on his person:- “1. Incised wound 5cm x 1.5 cm x 3 cm. on the right cheek in front of the ear. Wound was profusely bleeding. Advised X-ray. 2. Lacerated wound 6 cm x1 cm x bone deep on the right side of skull near the hair line. Wound was bleeding. Advised X-ray. 3. Swelling on the right side of skull 5 cm x 5 cm about 5 cm behind pinna. X-ray was advised. 4.Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm.bone deep on the right side of skull about 12 cm of pinna 4 cm from midline and 4 cm from occiput. X-ray advised. Criminal Revision No234 of 2002 4 5. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of forehead upper eye brow. Swelling in the area was present. 6. 1 cm x .5 cm abrasion on the nose near the middle. 7. 1 cm x 0.5cm abrasion on the nose near the base. 8. There was swelling 10 cm x 10 cm on the back of right elbow joint. There were abrasion abruises over it. X-ray advised. 9. 10 cm x 3 cm reddish bruise on the outer side of right upper half of upper arm near the shoulder. 10. 10 cm.x 3 cm. Reddish bruise on the back of middle of right forearm. X-ray was advised. 11. 1 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on the back outerside of left forearm about 9 cm from wrist wound was bleeding, swelling in the area present. X-ray advised 12. 1 cm x 0.5 cm abrasion on the back of left index finger on first I.P.joint. 13. 1 cm x 0.5 cm abrasion on the back of left little finger on first I.P.Joint. 14. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x 2cm on the left thigh on its back and outer side near the lower part of gluteal region. Wound was bleeding. 15. 12 cm x 3 cm bruise on the side of right thigh reddish in colour. 16.Multiple reddish bruises and abrasions on the back of chest Criminal Revision No234 of 2002 5 and upper part of groin. Bruises and abrasions were of various sizes.” Injuries No. 1 and 14 were declared grievous in nature and the other injures were declared simple. Injuries No. 1 and 14 were caused by sharp weapon and the remaining injuries were the result of blunt weapon. The testimony of the complainant is duly corroborated by the eye witness-Richhpal (PW3) and the medical evidence. Complainant had no reason to falsely involve the petitioner in this case and shield the real culprit. In these circumstances, the judgments of the Courts below whereby the petitioners were convicted under Sections 323/324/325/326/34 IPC call for no interference. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are facing criminal proceedings since the year 1995, it would be just and expedient to reduce their sentence qua imprisonment. Accordingly, sentence qua imprisonment under Sections 325/326/34 IPC is reduced to simple imprisonment for one year. Revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge May 11,2009 arya