IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 438 of 2003 Date of Decision : August 05, 2010 Suraj Mohammad and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the complainant. T.P.S. MANN, J.(Oral) The present revision is directed against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 10.2.2003, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against their conviction and sentences for the offences under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC as recorded by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla on 2.2.2000, was dismissed According to the prosecution, the occurrence in question had taken place on 21.6.1997 at about 12.00 noon. At that time, accused Suraj Mohammad came to the land concerning which dispute was pending between the accused party on the one hand and complainant Crl. Revision No. 438 of 2003 -2- Mst. Sardara on the other. Said Suraj Mohammad was accompanied by accused Marra Khan, Kala Khan and Sharif Mohammad. On reaching the spot, Suraj Mohammad started hurling abuses. He was sought to be restrained by the complainant by telling him that the case was already pending in the Court and, therefore, she would not allow him to cultivate the land. At this, accused Suraj Mohammad picked up a gandasa from his tractor and gave a blow on the right arm of complainant Sardara hitting her on her wrist joint. Accused Kala Khan gave an axe blow hitting the complainant below her left knee. Accused Marra Khan gave a stick blow on the left wrist joint. When an alarm was raised by the complainant, her daughter Suriya came there but accused Sharif Mohammad gave a gandasa blow on the back side of the head of Suriya. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to argue that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and, therefore, their conviction be set aside. However, after going through the impugned judgments, I find that the conviction of the petitioners had been rightly recorded by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the petitioners have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than thirteen years. None of the petitioners is a previous convict. All the petitioners have already undergone a substantial portion of their sentence of imprisonment. The present revision has remained Crl. Revision No. 438 of 2003 -3- pending in this Court for the last more than seven years. Therefore, the remaining sentences of imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to that already undergone by them. On the other hand learned State counsel, while assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that none of the petitioners deserves any concession in the matter of sentence as they have caused injuries to the ladies. Out of the various injuries received by the victims, one injury was found to be grievous in nature. However, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificates in respect of the petitioners. As per the custody certificates, Suraj Mohammad has already undergone seven months and twenty seven days in jail while in the case of Sharif Mohammad, Marra Khan and Kala Khan, the said period is seven months twelve days, six months twenty seven days and six months twenty six days, respectively. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, once again, for undergoing their remaining sentences. Ends of justice would be best met if the sentences of imprisonment of the petitioners are reduced to that already undergone by them. At the same time, the fine imposed upon them by the trial Crl. Revision No. 438 of 2003 -4- Court as upheld by the lower appellate Court, can be suitably enhanced so as to grant adequate compensation to the complainant party. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 326/34, 324/34 and 323/34 IPC is maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners by the Courts below are reduced to that already undergone by them. The fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed upon the petitioners for offence under Section 326/34 IPC is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each or in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine imposed upon the petitioners under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC alongwith their default clauses is maintained. Out of the fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon each of the petitioners under Section 326/34 IPC, an amount of Rs.25,000/- be paid to complainant Sardara and her daughter Suriya in equal shares. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 05, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1