IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.666 of 2002 Date of decision: 20th April, 2010 Jatinder Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Satraj Singh Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Jatinder Kumar, who was nominated as an accused in case FIR No.48 dated 26.06.1999 registered at Police Station Kurali under Sections 323, 325 IPC, has preferred present revision petition. In the above said FIR, petitioner was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Rupnagar. The trial Court held the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 323, 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 323 IPC. The petitioner was further sentenced under Section 325 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the Criminal Revision No.666 of 2002 same. Hence, conviction and the sentence of the petitioner were maintained. Thus, the present revision petition has been filed. FIR in the present case, was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PW3/A made by Sadhu Ram PW-1, who stated that he was grazing his buffalos in the fields of Sant Singh and was sitting on the ridge of the field. It was about 8.30 p.m. when the accused Jatinder Kumar came there and enquired as to why the complainant was sitting on the ridge of the field. It seems that at that time some hot words were exchanged. The accused snatched a stick from the hands of the complainant and caused him injuries. The complainant projected pendency of the civil litigation to be a motive behind the occurrence. It is not disputed that the petitioner was real nephew of the complainant injured Sadhu Ram. The appellate Court below has noticed the injuries suffered by Sadhu Ram complainant, in para 4 of its judgment. Injury No.1, which was on the left forearm, was declared grievous falling under the ambit of Section 325 IPC. It is stated that the occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 8th June, 1999. A period of about 11 years is going to elapse. It is contended that the petitioner has not only suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial but during the pendency of the present petition, relations between the family of the complainant and that of the accused have become cordial and they are living in complete harmony and amity. Criminal Misc. No.12310 of 2010 has been filed to place on record the death certificate of Sadhu Ram, real uncle (Chacha) of the accused along with the affidavit Kamaljit Kaur widow of Sadhu Ram, aunt (Chachi) of the accused petitioner. In the affidavit so filed, it is stated that the parties are closely related and their houses are adjacent to each 2 Criminal Revision No.666 of 2002 other. In para 3 of the affidavit furnished by Kamaljit Kaur, it has been averred as under: “3. That the accused Jatinder is none else but the son of Parkash Singh brother of the husband of the deponent and the family of Parkash Singh and the deponent are living in the houses adjacent to each other. Both the families are living in peace and are in good terms.” In the present case, occurrence had taken place in the month of June, 1999. About eleven years are going to elapse. Furthermore, the occurrence had ensued on the spur of a moment, when some hot words were exchanged. The accused was empty handed at that time. He had snatched a stick from the hands of the injured and caused him injuries. Furthermore, petitioner has been sentenced to undergo only six months rigorous imprisonment. Taking into consideration the fact that the parties are maintaining good relations, this Court is of the opinion that sending the petitioner behind the bars may disturb the prevailing peace. Therefore, taking the entire conspectus of the case into consideration, the sentence of six months awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. With the modification in sentence noticed above, present revision petition, along with Criminal Misc. No.12310 of 2010, is hereby disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 20, 2010 rps 3