Criminal Revision No.1891 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1891 of 2011 Date of decision : 16.11.2011. Parvinder Singh ................ Petitioner vs. State of Punjab ................. Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Sh. J.S.Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. K.C. PURI, J. This is revision petition directed by Parvinder Singh petitioner against the judgment dated 18.8.2011 passed by Shri G.K.Dhir, learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide which the appeal preferred by the accused- petitioner against the judgment and order dated 8.10.2010 passed by Shri Criminal Revision No.1891 of 2011 2 Ashok Kumar Chauhan, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar, was dismissed after modification in sentence to the effect that substantive sentence awarded qua commission of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC reduced by six months from one year. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.10.2006 at about 10.00a.m., Randhir Singh complainant along with his wife Jarnail Kaur was present at his house where accused Parwinder Singh alongwith his wife Harvinder Kaur came while armed with kulhari and stick respectively. They started hurling abuses to the complainant and his wife. Accused Parwinder Singh gave push to complainant and thereafter gave blow of the reverse side of kulhari (axe) which hit on the hands of complainant. Accused gave another axe blow on feet of complainant. The accused then caught hold his wife from her hair and threw her on the ground. Harvinder Kaur, the daughter-in-law of complainant but wife of accused Parwinder Singh gave stick blow on Jarnail Kaur, which hit in her stomach, right shoulder and hand. On raising hue and cry by the complainant, Kuldeep Kaur, Harbhinder Singh and Harjinder Singh were attracted to the spot of occurrence and they freed complainant and his wife from clutches of accused and his wife. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused. The investigation commenced. The accused was arrested. Statements of the PWs were recorded and after completion of the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial. 3. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were supplied to him and on finding a prima facie case charge under Sections Criminal Revision No.1891 of 2011 3 323, 452, 506 and 34 IPC was framed against the petitioner and his wife and to whichb they pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined Dr.Parminderjit Singh (PW-1), Randhir Singh (PW-2), Kuldeep Kaur (PW- 3), Harbhupinder Singh (PW-4), Mehma Singh (PW-5), Harjinder Singh (PW-6) and Jarnail Kaur as PW-7 and closed the prosecution evidence. 5. In their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and claimed their innocence. They did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused under Sections 323 and 506 Part II of the IPC whereas acquitted under Section 452 IPC vide judgment and order dated 8.10.2010. Accused Harwinder Kaur was ordered to be released on probation of good conduct whereas accused Parwinder Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 323 IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused-appellant preferred appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar and the said learned Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 18.8.2011 by reducing the sentence from one year to six months under Section 506 IPC. Criminal Revision No.1891 of 2011 4 7. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the present revision petition has been directed by the accused-appellant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below but has prayed regarding reduction in the quantum of sentence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place more than five years ago and since then the petitioner is undergoing the protracted trial. The dispute is between the family members and the petitioner has been convicted only under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. So, prayer has been made for reduction in sentence. 11. Prayer has been opposed by the learned State counsel. 12. I have carefully considered the said submission. 13. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of three months and two days as on today. He has been convicted under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and the maximum sentence passed is six months. Out of that sentence, he has already undergone about half of the sentence. He is facing trial for the last more than five years. So, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, his sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone. However, his sentence of fine stands enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 14. With the modification in the sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Criminal Revision No.1891 of 2011 5 15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. The accused, if not required in any other case, after depositing of the amount, as indicated above, be released forthwith. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 16 , 2011 sv