CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 776 OF 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: March 10, 2009. Parties Name Lal Chand and another ...PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) ORDER: It was allegation against the petitioners, Ramesh Kumar and Giano, that on January 7, 1991, they caused injuries to PW1 Smt. Shanti widow of Raghbir, PW2 Surinder son of Raghbir and one Davender. Vide judgment and order dated October 24/25, 1996, the petitioners were convicted for commission of offences under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months under Section 323 IPC and RI for one year u/S 325 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- with a default clause. However, the other two, namely, Shanti Devi and Ramesh were acquitted vide judgment , referred to above. They went in appeal, which was dismissed CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 776 OF 2002 -2- vide judgment dated April 9, 2002. Hence this revision petition. Counsel for the petitioners has very fairly conceded that on merits, it may not be possible for him to lay challenge to the judgments of the Courts below. However, in the alternative, he prayed that the petitioners and the injured were co-villagers. Occurrence had taken place in the year 1991. Due to lapse of time, the parties might have forgotten about the said incident. They are now living in peace. If at this stage, the petitioners are sent behind the bars, the old enmity will revive, which will not be good for the peace and harmony in the village. Counsel further states that petitioner No. 1 is more than 83 years of age and if at this stage, he is sent behind the bars, probably he will die in jail. Counsel further states that Satish Kumar, petitioner No.2, has settled in life and he has grown up children. He is the only bread winner of his family and if he is sent behind the bars, not only he but his entire family would suffer. By stating as above, prayer has been made that the petitioners be released on probation. Shri S.S.Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana, has not seriously opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners. Purpose of criminal law 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 CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 776 OF 2002 -3- 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 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 the fact that the occurrence took place 18 years earlier to the decision of appeal and the parties were relatives, reduced CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 776 OF 2002 -4- 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. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have undergone two months of actual sentence. Further they are the first offenders. Taking note of the above said fact, conviction of the petitioners is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by them. With a view to settle equity between the parties and ratio of the judgment in Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372, fine imposed upon them is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each . They are directed to deposit the same with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which, their revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit so being made, the trial Court shall issue notices to the injured, namely Smt. Shanti (PW1) and Surinder (PW2) and disburse the amount so deposited 60% in favour of Shanti (PW1) and 40% in favour of Surinder (PW2). With above said modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. March 10, 2009. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 776 OF 2002 -5-