IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2006 Date of Decision: May 15, 2009 Girdhala and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Bhag Singh,Advocate, for the petitioners Ms.Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.J.K.Goel,Advocate for the complainant. ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 23.2.2004 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Kaithal. Vide order dated 24.2.2004 petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC . Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 4.11.2006. Hence, the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2006 -2- The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “ The FIR in this case was registered on the statement of Sat Pal son of Tula Ram. As per the FIR, Tula Ram had three brothers namely Mithia, Fatia and Sher Chand. Mithia had died issueless. He was living with the family of Tula Ram. About 11-12 years back, he had transferred his four killas of land in the name of the sons of Tula Ram. So after the death of Mithia, sons of Sheo Chand and Fatia had filed a civil suit challenging the said transfer and because of this, the relations between the families were strained. On 15.11.1997 at about 7.30 a.m. Sat Pal complainant was returning from his field. When he reached near the field of Mahabir Baragi, he was intercepted by Girdhala and Sukla @ Sukh Ram, sons of Fatia, who were armed with `lathis'. They raised lalkara and the complainant should be taught a lesson for getting the land transferred in his name. Then Girdhala and Sukla both caused injuries to the complainant with their respective `lathis'. He had raised hue and cry on which his brother Ram Kumar had reached the spot and on seeing him the accused had fled from the spot. The injured was taken to the hospital where his statement (Ex.PA) was recorded by the police, on the basis of which an entry No. 14 was recorded in the daily diary register. Copy of the same is (Ex.PG). Then on 19.11.1997 on receipt of the report of radiologist, FIR under Sections 323/325/34 IPC was registered against the accused. Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2006 -3- After registration of the FIR, the investigating officer had visited the spot, prepared rough site plan, recorded statements of witnesses. He collected the medical records;arrested the accused and on completion of investigation, the challan was filed in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate." At the time of issuance of notice, the following order was passed on 14.11.2006:- " This is a revision petition against the judgment of the revisional Court whereby the judgment of the Trial Court has been confirmed. The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 323 and 325 IPC. The judgment of conviction has not been challenged and arguments have been addressed only with regard to quantum of sentence. Notice regarding quantum of sentence only for 18.12.2006". Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.2 is a Government employee and he may be released on probation as he has been dismissed from service on account of his involvement in this case. Learned counsel for the State, who is assisted by Mr.J.K.Goel, counsel for the complainant, have opposed the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the present case, the injured had suffered eight injuries. The injured had suffered fracture of right forearm and left forearm. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners who were armed with lathis had attacked Criminal Revision No.2314 of 2006 -4- the injured Sat Pal and inflicted eight injuries on his person, no case for release of the petitioners on probation is made out. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have already undergone more than five months of actual sentence and they are not involved in any other criminal case, the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. Accordingly, since the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323 and 325 IPC was not challenged at the time of issuance of notice,the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323, 325 IPC is not maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of. (Sabina) Judge May 15, 2009 arya