IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 819 of 2002 Date of decision : 20-05-2009 Gurcharan Singh .....Petitioner State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate with Mr. Karan Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, A.A.G., Punjab for the State. ***** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 20-04-2002 vide which the appeal against the judgment dated 15-07-1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur, convicting the petitioner/accused under Section 326 IPC and further sentencing him to go rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 23-12-1996 at 6.45 p.m. But the present case was lodged on 24-12-1996 at about 4.30 p.m., therefore causing delay of 22 hours and the prosecution has failed to explain the inordinate delay. This creates doubts in the story of the prosecution. It was further submitted Criminal Revision No. 819 of 2002 -2- that this is a case of cross version. The alleged accident took place suddenly and both the parties received injuries. Petitioner/accused- Gurcharan Singh was also admitted in the Hospital and rather he received the injury on the skull and even he was unable to make the statement on 23-12-1996 due to the injury received by him. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere in the judgment passed by the Courts below. It was for the accused to prove the injury, if any, suffered by him. The occurrence took place all of a sudden in the street in which the injured-complainant received grievous injury in a free fight. The injury caused by the accused is with Gandasa and the same has been inflicted on Amarjit Kaur. The same was grievous in nature and stand proved from the medical evidence. The entire incident is corroborated by the eye-witness. There is no scope for interference in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. In view of the above, no fault can be found with the conviction of the petitioner. Accordingly, his conviction for the various offences is, hereby, affirmed. Coming to the question of quantum of sentence, it may be noticed that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1996. 13 years have passed. It is admittedly a case of free fight. The occurrence took place all of a sudden in the street and the said injury is on the arm of the complainant-Amarjit Kaur. Since the conviction is under Section 326 I.P.C., and the maximum sentence prescribed under this Section is life sentence, I do not find any ground to release the petitioner on probation. However, ends of justice would be met on the basis of the facts and reasons narrated above, if the sentence is reduced to six months. Thus, the Criminal Revision No. 819 of 2002 -3- sentence, convicting the accused under Section 326 I.P.C., and further sentencing him to go for rigorous imprisonment for one year is reduced to six months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the present Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE 20-05-2009 gurpreet Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes