Criminal Rev. No. 3277 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 3277 of 2010 Date of Decision:Deember 23, 2010 Paramjit Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 326/324/323/148,149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 17.11.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Vide order of even date, petitioners were ordered to undergo the following sentence:- Criminal Rev. No. 3277 of 2010 2 Paramjit Singh Gurpal Singh Under Section 326 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each Gurpal Singh Hukam Singh Jarnail Singh Under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one and half year and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-each Paramjit Singh Hukam Singh Jarnail Singh Under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 Cr.PC. Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each Jarnail Singh Paramjit Singh Gurpal Singh Hukam Singh Under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each Hukam Singh Under Section 324 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- Paramjit Singh Gurpal Singh Jarnail Singh Under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each Jarnail Singh Under Section 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each Paramjit Singh Hukam Singh Gurpal Singh Under Section 323/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. Paramjit Singh Gurpal Singh Hukam Singh Jarnail Singh Under Section 148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was partly allowed with the modification that appellants Paramjit Singh and Gurpal Singh were convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 324 IPC and were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC each instead of Section 326 IPC,whereas, the remaining appellants i.e. Jarnail Singh and Hukam Singh were convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC each instead of under Section 326 read with Section 149 Criminal Rev. No. 3277 of 2010 3 IPC and qua the remaining sentence the appellants were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment as already awarded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 17.11.2004. Hence, the present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- "The prosecution story in brief in this case is like the appellants alongwith co-accused were sent to face the trial before the learned lower Court under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC by the Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 17.5.1997 at about 10.00 A.M. Complainant Bhajan Singh was returning from Joshi Hospital, Jalandhar after seeing his nephew Gurdial Singh who was admitted there. It has been further alleged that complainant was coming on a scooter to his village Banwalipur whereas his son Tarsem Singh and nephew Avtar Singh were coming on separate scooter behind the scooter of complainant because they had also gone to see said Gurdial Singh. It has been further alleged that when the complainant reached near Palace Complex Dharampal in the area of village Kala Sanghian at about 10.00 P.M. then accused Paramjit Singh, Hukam Singh also came there on a scooter and both of them had intentionally struck against the scooter of complainant Bhajan Singh, as a result of which complainant Bhajan Singh had fallen on the ground. It has been further alleged that complainant had run towards pits in order to save himself from the clutches of accused but in the meantime accused Hukam Singh raised lalkara Criminal Rev. No. 3277 of 2010 4 that Bhajan Singh should be caught and then accused Gurpal Singh @ Rana, Bittu @ Chiri, Kohlu, Kulwant Singh @ Kanta, accused Jinder son of Paramjit Singh, Jaila son of Harbans Singh, Ghogi son of Sohan Singh have also come there. It has been further alleged that accused Hukam Singh had raised lalkara to catch hold complainant Bhajan Singh and to teach him a lesson because Bhajan Singh had given evidence against Hukam Singh. It has been further alleged that all the accused had encircled complainant Bhajan Singh. It has been further alleged by the prosecution that accused Paramjit Singh, accused Hukam Singh, accused Gurpal Singh, accused Kulwant Singh @ Kanta were armed with kirpans whereas accused Ghogi was also armed with datar and accused Bittu, Kohlu and Jaila were empty handed. It has been further alleged by the complainant that accused Ghogi had inflicted the datar blow from its reverse side on the head of Bhajan Singh due to which complainant Bhajan Singh had fallen on the ground then accused Paramjit Singh had given kirpan blow which had hit on the right leg and knee of complainant. Accused Kulwant Singh had given kirpan blow on the right leg of complainant. Accused Hukam Singh had given kirpan injuries on the left leg and left knee of the complainant. Accused Gurpal Singh also had given kirpan blow on the left leg of complainant. It has been further alleged that accused Jarnail Singh had given kirpan blow which had hit on the left hand of complainant. Accused Bittu had given kick blows on the mouth, lips of complainant, whereas accused Kohlu and Jaila had given fist Criminal Rev. No. 3277 of 2010 5 blows on the person of complainant. It has been further alleged that Bhajan Singh raised alarm “Mar Ditta Mar Ditta Bachao Bachao” then Tarsem Singh and Avtar Singh had saved the complainant from the clutches of accused. It has been further alleged that all the accused had run away from the place of occurrence alongwith their weapons by driving the scooter fastly" Learned counsel for the petitioners,during the course of arguments, has not challanged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148 IPC, 324, 323 read with Section 149 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to already undergone by them. Petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1997. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners to already undergone by them. As per the custody certificate of the petitioners placed on record by the learned State counsel, petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148 IPC, 324,323 read with Section 149 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. Petitioners- Paramjit Singh and Gurpal Singh are directed to deposit additional fine of ` 10,000/- each, whereas, petitioners-Hukam Singh and Jarnail Singh are directed to deposit additional fine of ` 5000/-. The additional fine deposited by the petitioners be released to injured Harbhajan Singh forthwith. Petitioners are Criminal Rev. No. 3277 of 2010 6 directed to deposit the additional fine within two months from today failing which this petition shall stand dismissed. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sabina ) Judge December 23, 2010 arya