CRIMINAL REVISION NO.647 OF 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: March 09, 2009. Parties Name Hukam Singh and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana; JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) ORDER: It was allegation against the petitioners that on July 27, 1990, they along with Balwant Singh and Sucha Singh caused injuries to Pritam Singh and his brother Bhola Singh. All the four were charge-sheeted. However, during trial, Sucha Singh and Balwant Singh died and vide judgment dated March 06, 1997, the petitioners were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Following order of sentence was passed against them on March 14, 1997: “Convicts Hukam Singh and Amrik Singh are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 323 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a CRIMINAL REVISION NO.647 OF 2002 -2- period of one year under Section 324 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 326 of the IPC. Convicts Hukam Singh and Amrik Singh are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under section 326 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, convicts Hukam Singh and Amrik Singh shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.” The petitioners went in appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment dated March 5, 2002. Hence this revision petition. Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in its judgment under challenge, reads thus: “In his statement Pritam Singh inter alia alleged: On 27.7.90 at 6 PM, Pritam Singh was sitting on cot lying in vacant site in front of his house. Accused Balwant Singh came in the street in front of his house and proclaimed “Pritam Singh Barre Badhmash Idhar Aayaga Too Kahata Hai Ke Balwant Singh Sharab Me Pani Milla Kar Bechta Hai.” Pritam Singh requested accused Balwant Singh with folded hands that he did not say anything and that he should go to his house. Accused Hukam Singh (armed with Gandasa), accused Amrik Singh (armed with Gandasa) and accused Sucha Singh (with Safa in his hand) came there. Bhola Singh brother of Pritam Singh also happened to come there. Accused Balwant Singh (who was also armed with Gandasa) inflicted Gandasa blow on the head of Bhola Singh. Accused Amrik Singh inflicted Gandasa blow on the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.647 OF 2002 -3- head of Pritam Singh in the right side. Thereafter, Gandasa slipped and again hit right shoulder of Pritam Singh. Thereafter, accused Hukam Singh inflicted Gandasa blow which fell on the little fingers of both the hands of Pritam Singh. Pritam Singh and Bhola Singh fell down. Accused left for their respective houses with their respective weapons. While leaving accused Sucha Singh threatened if they (Pritam Singh and Bhola Singh) came forward then he would see them. The occurrence was witnessed by Bala Singh and Sucha Singh (Brother of Pritam Singh and Bvhola Singh).” Both the injured were shifted to General Hospital, Fatehabad. On receipt of intimation from there, ASI Maya Ram went to the Hospital. However, they were declared unfit to make the statement. After getting certificate from the Doctor, regarding fitness of the injured, statement of Pritam Singh was recorded, in which he stated regarding the occurrence and the manner, in which it had taken place, as mentioned above. Formal FIR was accordingly recorded. The Investigating Officer went to the spot and prepared site plan of the place of occurrence. After getting opinion from the doctor and performing other formalities, final report was put in Court for trial. The petitioners were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material was put to them. They denied the same, pleaded CRIMINAL REVISION NO.647 OF 2002 -4- innocence and false implication. In defence, they stated that injuries were received by Pritam Singh and Bhola Singh in a fight, inter se them and they (petitioners) have falsely been implicated on account of enmity between the parties. They also examined Bhagwan Singh as DW1. However, the trial Court on appraisal of evidence as led by the parties, found them guilty, convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned above. They also failed in appeal. By making reference to the statements made by PW4 Pritam Singh and PW5, Bhola Singh, counsel for the petitioners, tried to show that both the witnesses were discrepant on various material points and in view of that, their statements could not be relied upon. Counsel further argued that the FIR was delayed, on account of which benefit must be given to the petitioners. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, judgments under challenge be set aside and the petitioners be acquitted of the charges. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Shri S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who by making reference to the statements of the witnesses and medical evidence on record, argued that the prosecution was successful in bringing home guilt to the petitioners and as such their conviction and sentence are justified. He prayed that the revision petition be dismissed. He further argued that in a criminal revision, scope to interfere is very limited. To support his contention, he has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. State of H.P., 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that on merits, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Eye witness account has been given by Pritam Singh (PW4) and Bhola Singh (PW5). It has also CRIMINAL REVISION NO.647 OF 2002 -5- come on record that immediately after the alleged occurrence, both the injured were shifted to General Hospital at Fatehabad, where they were medico legally examined by Dr. Narinder Chakarwarti (PW1) at 9 PM and 9.30 PM, respectively. They were not fit to make a statement. Their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer on July 28, 1990, after getting certificate of fitness from the doctor. Both the witnesses have given vivid description as to how occurrence had taken place. It has also come on record that Bhola Singh had received one injury and Pritam Singh had received four injuries at the time of the alleged occurrence. Injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on part of the trial Court and the appellate Court, which may necessitate interference by this Court in revision petition. This Court feels that as per facts of this case and ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra), on merits no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioners prayed that both the petitioners were first offenders. Motive to commit crime was also not very serious. Counsel further states that petitioner No. 1 Hukam Singh is about 75 years of age while petitioner No. 2 is also of old age and if at this stage, they are sent behind the bars, certainly petitioner No. 1 Hukam Singh will die in jail. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have undergone more than two months of actual sentence. By stating as above, prayer has been made that leniency be shown to them. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the petitioners deserve lenient treatment. Purpose of criminal law CRIMINAL REVISION NO.647 OF 2002 -6- justice system is not only to punish an individual but is also to reform him. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) , 2001(9) Supreme Court 161, in paragraph No. 7, observed as under:- “Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repeat for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weight the degree of culpability of the accused. Its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society: weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law, an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances CRIMINAL REVISION NO.647 OF 2002 -7- placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law.” In Tarak Nath Singh and another v. State of West Bengal, 1998 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping in view a fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Similar is the opinion expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmail Singh, 2002 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600. In that case, in an appeal against acquittal, accused were convicted, however, they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment already undergone, keeping in view the fact that incident had occurred in the year 1981. To the same effect is the opinion of this Court in Chhota Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 467. Record reveals that the petitioners and the injured are co- villagers. With the passage of time, they might have forgotten about the sad incident, which occurred on July 27, 1990. The petitioners are facing agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 18 years. Petitioner No. 1 is about 75 years of age. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that after their conviction in the present case, both have acted in a very disciplined manner and have not indulged themselves into any other crime of the like nature. Counsel assures this Court that in future also, the petitioners will keep peace and will not give any cause for complaint to the law enforcing agency. If at this stage, they are sent behind bars, it will CRIMINAL REVISION NO.647 OF 2002 -8- result into reviving old enmity and the same will not be conducive for peace and harmony in the village. Families of the petitioners will also suffer. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case and ratio of the judgments, mentioned above, conviction of the petitioners is upheld. However, sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, keeping in view ratio of the judgment in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372, petitioners are ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (to be shared equally by both ). Amont be deposited with the trial Court within three months from today. On deposit so being made, notices to the injured be issued and out of that amount, Rs. 15,000/- be paid to Pritam Singh,injured, and Rs. 10,000/- be paid to injured Bhola Singh. If the petitioners fail to deposit the fine, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Disposed of. March 09, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge