Criminal Revision No. 264 of 1998 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 264 of 1998 Date of Decision: 8.8.2008 Net Ram and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by Net Ram son of Shiv Raj and Krishan son of Dhokal, residents of village Tharwa, Police Station Tohana, District Hisar. Both the petitioners were named as accused in case FIR No. 365 dated 12.9.1990 registered at Police Station Tohana, under Sections 326, 506 & 34 IPC. They were tried along with one Hanuman son of Dhokal. Learned trial Court convicted Net Ram, Krishan and Hanuman under Sections 326 & 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Hanuman was ordered to be released on probation. Net Ram and Criminal Revision No. 264 of 1998 2 Krishan were sentenced to undergo one year and five months each under Section 326 IPC. They were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and five months each under Section 506 IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each under this Section. Aggrieved against the same, petitioners Net Ram and Krishan had preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Statement Ex.PA was made by Sheo Narain to Dalip Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, on 12.9.1990 at 11.15 A.M. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 11.9.1990 at 8.00 P.M. It is stated that in a rainy season, complainant Sheo Narain had gone to his fields to drain the water out from the fields. He found water course blocked. When he was going to remove the blockade, all the accused came there. Accused Net Ram was armed with Gandasi, and accused Krishan was armed with Kulhari, whereas accused Hanuman was empty handed. Accused Hanuman as stated raised a lalkara that the complainant be taught lesson for draining out the water through the water course. It was further stated that Net Ram accused gave gandasi blow on the left hand of complainant Sheo Narain and his three fingers were cut. Accused Krishan gave a kulhari blow to Sheo Narain and he fell on the ground. On alarm raised, Sant Lal, Karan Singh, and Shakuntla were attracted at the spot. The complainant was saved and the accused decamped from the spot along with their weapons. The complainant was medicolegally examined in Civil Hospital, Tohana. Four injuries were found on his person. Three injuries Criminal Revision No. 264 of 1998 3 were on the fingers. Accused were arrested. The weapons were recovered at their instance. Investigation was concluded. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Sheo Narain appeared as PW.1. PW.2 Dr. S.L.Aggarwal had proved the medicolegal evidence. PW.3 Karan Singh is the eye witness who was attracted at the spot. PW.4 Shakuntla is another eye witness who had witnessed the occurrence. PW.5 Prem is an attesting witness to the recovery memo and disclosure statement made by the accused, which led to the recovery of the weapons. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. Two Courts below have relied upon the statement of eye witnesses and statement of injured-complainant Sheo Narain PW.1. The argument of material discrepancies, contradictions and improvements were rejected. Delay in the lodging of the report was not taken into consideration as the Courts below were of the view that the same has been explained as the injured was declared unfit to make statement. The argument that the witnesses being interested have deposed falsely was also not accepted. Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has stated that he is conscious that the two Courts below have given the Criminal Revision No. 264 of 1998 4 findings of fact and held the petitioners to be guilty. He has very candidly stated that he is not in a position to assail conviction of the petitioners. He has further stated that in the present case, Net Ram has undergone two months of his actual sentence, whereas Krishan has undergone five months out of his actual sentence. Counsel has further stated that in the present case, occurrence pertains to September 1990. The petitioners have suffered protracted trail of 18 years. As stated before the trial Court, it has been reiterated before me that the petitioners are only bread earners of the family and in the last 18 years they have done well in their life by leading a life of honest and peaceful citizens. It has been further stated that in case the petitioners are sent behind the bars, it may disturb the peace which is already prevailing in the village. It has been further contended that both the complainant and the petitioners are having adjoining fields and on rainy day when the complainant intended to drain the water out of the water course, occurrence had taken place without any pre-mediation. Taking into consideration the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioners to already undergone. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- qua each accused. The amount of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid as compensation to Sheo Narain, complainant-injured. The trial Court shall call upon the petitioners to deposit the amount of fine within three months after the receipt of copy of the order. The amount of fine so deposited shall be disbursed to injured Sheo Narain as compensation. In case, the amount of fine is not deposited, the petitioners shall not be entitled to benefit of reduction of sentence. Criminal Revision No. 264 of 1998 5 With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 8, 2008 “DK”