Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 16, 2009 Puran Singh and another ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioners were convicted under Sections 323,325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 19.12.1998 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Patti. Vide order of even date, petitioner-Puran Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC and petitioner-Pargat Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Sections 325/323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2002 2 the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 24.1.2002 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 is that on 14.9.1994, one M.L.R. No.237-R-JS/94 regarding Avtar Singh received in the police Station. ASI Milkha Singh along with the police party went to S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar for recording statement of Avtar Singh. After getting the opinion of the doctor, statement of Avtar Singh was recorded who stated that he is resident of village Kirian and is an agriculturist. On 13.9.1994 he alongwith his cousin Dilbagh Singh were returning from the shop of Dr.Harbhajan Singh, as the shop was lying closed. When he and Dilbagh Singh reached near the house of Sulakhan Singh it was about 5.00 p.m. from the other side they saw Pargat Singh @ Papu armed with Khunda and his father Puran Singh armed with dang coming from the other gali. Puran Singh gave a lalkara telling Papu to caught hold of he complainant. Then Pargat Singh @ Pappu gave a khunda blow. The complainant in order to save himself raised his right hand as a result of which khunda blow hit his right hand. Puran Singh gave a dang blow which hit on his left wrist. The complainant fell down on the ground Pargat Singh @ Pappu gave a Khunda blow on his left leg as a result of which his left leg was fractured. He and his brother Dilbag Singh raised alarm for helping. Both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence alongwith their respective weapons. The main reason behind this Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2002 3 occurrence was that he had prevented Pargat Singh @ Pappu from singing obscene song in front of his house, because of this reason Pargat Singh @ Pappu nourished a grudge against him. On the basis of the statement of Avtar Singh the case was registered u/s 323/34 IPC. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were referred for x-ray. The report of doctor was received in the police station on 26.9.1994 through dak. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were declared as grievous. Thereafter, the offence u/s 325 IPC was included on 26.9.1994 and case was registered. After completing all the formalities of the case, the challan was presented in the Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323/325/34 IPC . Learned counsel has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to already undergone by them. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 13.9.1994 at about 5.00 P.M., whereas, when the injured was medico legally examined by the doctor on 14.9.1994 at 7.30 A.M. he was already having a POP cast on his left leg and left forearm. X-ray examination was conducted on 16.9.1994. There was no material on record as to when and where POP cast was applied on the left leg and left forearm of the petitioner and too without x- ray examination. Petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1994. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment of petitioners is liable to be reduced to already undergone by them. Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2002 4 Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323/325/34 IPC is maintained. However, their sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by them. This petition is disposed of accordingly. (Sabina) Judge April 16, 2009 arya