IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2061 of 2003 Date of decision: September 13, 2010 Santokh Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Criminal Revision No.2129 of 2003 Teja Singh and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Criminal Revision No. 2174 of 2003 Ram Chand .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Revision No.2061 of 2003. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Revision No. 2129 of 2003. None for the petitioner in Crl. Revision No.2174 of 2003. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of three connected revision petition Nos. 2061, 2129 and 2174 of 2003 against the judgment dated 15.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Six accused namely Gian Singh, Teja Singh, Sarwan Singh, Santokh Singh, Ram Chand and Ramal Dass faced trial under Sections 323/324/325/34 IPC, out of which Ramal Dass died during trial and Gian Criminal Revision No. 2061 of 2003 -2- Singh was acquitted of the charges. However, the remaining four accused namely Teja Singh, Sarwan Singh, Santokh Singh and Ram Chand were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each under Section 148 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each under Sections 323 read with Section 149 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.700/- each under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC. The appeals preferred by them were also dismissed. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 26.3.1992, the complainant Sohan Singh along with his father Narain Singh and sister in law Bhajan Kaur was working in his fields. At about 2.30 p.m. the accused Gian Singh armed with gun, Teja Singh and Santokh Singh armed with gandasis, Ram Chand, Sarwan and Ramal Dass armed with lathies came there. Accused Ram Chand exhorted that the land in question belongs to them, at which accused attacked the complainant party and caused them several injuries and ran away from the spot. The injured were medically examined. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered against the accused on 27.3.1992 and investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. The accused were charged under Sections 323/324/325/149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. S.L. Aggarwal (PW1), C. Hawa Singh (PW2), Sohan Singh complainant (PW3), Bhajan Kaur (PW4), Narain Singh (PW5), Gurdeep Singh (PW6), Dr. R.P. Dahiya (PW7) and SI Dharam Singh (PW8) When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction of Teja Singh, Sarwan Singh, Santokh Singh and Ram Chand, whereas accused Gian Singh was acquitted of the charges. Accused Ramal Dass died during trial. Arguments heard. Record perused. Criminal Revision No. 2061 of 2003 -3- Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the accused Teja Singh and Ram Chand were in their seventies, Sarwan Singh was 65 years and Santokh Singh was about 40 years old at the time of occurrence i.e. 26.3.1992. He has further urged that the injuries caused to Sohan Singh, Narain Singh and Bhajan Kaur are simple in nature except injury No.1 on the person of Narain Singh that too on the non vital part of his body. The accused persons being in old age are in the evening of their lives, therefore, some concession should be extended to them on the quantum of sentence. There are three injured namely Sohan Singh, Narain Singh and Bhajan Kaur. Sohan Singh and Bhajan Kaur received six injuries whereas, Narain Singh suffered two injuries. The injuries on the person of Bhajan Kaur and Sohan Singh are simple in nature. The sole injury found grievous on the person of Narain Singh is on the non vital part of his body i.e. tibia. The occurrence took place way back in the year 1992, therefore, they have already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings pending against them since then. Teja Singh was 77 years old, Sarwan Singh 65 years, Ram Chand 80 years and Santokh Singh was 38 years old at the time of occurrence. Now after 18 years, all of them except Santokh Singh must have crossed nineties. Similarly, Santokh Singh must be 58 years old. They are stated to be first offenders. No such bad antecedents have been brought on record so as to dub them as habitual offenders. The occurrence took place in the village Dhani Majra and the parties were litigating on the civil side. The sole injury which was declared to be grievous in nature was found on the non vital part of the body of Narain Singh. Otherwise, the remaining injuries are simple in nature. As such, in these peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things if some leniency is shown to the accused. Resultantly, the petitions are dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them without alteration in the sentence of fine. September 13, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge