Crl.Rev. No.285 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 285 of 2005 Date of Decision:April 07,2010 Surinder Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus Gulzar Singh and another ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.N.C.Doabia Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG Punjab Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the complainant. ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 148/326/324/ 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 15.4.2004 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Baba Bakala. Vide order of even date, Petitioners-Surinder Singh,Harjinder Singh, Bir Singh, Darshan Singh and Aaya Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 148 IPC and petitioner-Surinder Singh was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 326 IPC. Petitioners-Harjinder Singh, Bir Singh Darshan Singh and Aaya Singh were also sentenced to undergo rigorous Crl.Rev. No.285 of 2005 2 imprisonment for 1½ years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Sections 326/149 IPC and petitioner-Harjinder Singh was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 324 IPC. Petitioners-Surinder Singh, Bir Singh Darshan Singh and Aaya Singh were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 324/149 IPC and petitioners-Bir Singh, Aaya Singh and Darshan Singh each were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC. Petitioners-Surinder Singh and Harjinder Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Sections 323/149 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge Amritsar vide judgment dated 1.2.2005. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment, are as under:- “2.Gulzar Singh, respondent/complainant, instituted a complaint on the allegations that he is a resident of village Tarsikka, District Amritsar and the accused party also belongs to the same village. During the last Panchayat Elections, Sharanjit Kaur wife of Surinder Singh, accused No.1 contested the election for the post of Sarpanch. Manjit Kaur wife of Shamsher Singh also filed nomination papers alongwith other candidates for contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch. Sharanjit Kaur was elected as Sarpanch. Since the complainant party was convassing for Manjit Kaur during the elections, as such, the accused had been nursing a Crl.Rev. No.285 of 2005 3 grudge against the complainant for supporting Manjit Kaur and that is the motive for the accused party to commit an offence against the complainant. The accused party had been threatening the complainant with dire consequences for supporting Manjit Kaur and opposing Sharanjit Kaur, in the elections. On 28.2.1999 at about 5 p.m., the complainant alongwith Bir Singh was returning from Canal Bridge, Tarsikka to their home and when they reached near the house of Gurdial Singh, the accused party came from the village side. Surinder Singh accused was armed with Kirpan, Harjinder Singh was also armed with Kirpan while Bir Singh, Aaya Singh and Darshan Singh were armed with Dangs. They surrounded the complainant. Surinder Singh accused raised a lalkara and exhorted his co-accused to catch hold the complainant and teach him a lesson for supporting Manjit Kaur during panchayat elections. On this, accused Harjinder Singh gave a Kirpan blow hitting on his left upper arm in its middle from the sharp side of the Kirpan and Surinder Singh gave a Kirpan blow from its sharp side hitting the complainant on his right leg. Aaya Singh inflicted two dang blows on the right forearm and right thigh of the complainant. Bir Singh inflicted a dang blow on the back of right shoulder of the complainant while Darshan Singh gave a dang blow hitting the complainant on his back side of right shoulder. An alarm was raised and Bir Singh saved the complainant from the cluthes of the accused and witnessed the occurrence. The accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant due to fear from Crl.Rev. No.285 of 2005 4 the accused and apprehending danger to his life, could not get himself medico-legally examined. However, on the next day, the complainant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and as per his direction, he was medico-legally examined at Amritsar. The complainant approached the police after his medico-legal examination, but the accused party had influence with the police. The police joined hands with the accused party and got registered a false case bearing FIR No. 73/99 under sections 323/324/326/341/356/295-A/34 IPC against Jabarjit Singh son of the complainant, Buta Singh Shamsher Singh and Jaspal Singh. The complainant had been approaching the police but no action was taken by the police and ultimately he instituted the present complaint. 3.The complainant led preliminary evidence and the accused were summoned for having committed the offences under sections 326,324,323,341,148 and 149 of the IPC vide order dated 16.11.1999. The accused put in their appearance in the Court and were admitted to bail. 4.In his evidence recorded u/s 244 Cr.P.C., the complainant examined 6 witnesses, besides producing documentary evidence. Vide order dated 28.5.2002, a prima facie case under Sections 326,324,323 and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out against the accused and they were charge- sheeted thereunder. Thereafter, four witnesses were tendered for their further cross-examination. 5. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been Crl.Rev. No.285 of 2005 5 recorded and they have pleaded their false implication. The accused have examined three witnesses in their defence evidence”. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148/326/324/ 323/149 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that it was a case of version and cross-version. Complainant is present in person and has not opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148/326/324/ 323/149 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge April 07, 2010 arya