Criminal Revision No.323 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.323 of 2002 Date of Decision:24.03.2009 Mukhtiar Hassan and another .....Petitioners Vs. U.T. Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- None for the petitioners. Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 18.1.2002 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby he reduced the sentence of the revision petitioners to the period of nine months rigorous imprisonment maintaining the imposition of fine of Rs.250/- on each of them under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC with a direction that if they have not paid this fine, they shall undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment in default thereof and acquitted them of the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC with a further direction that the fine, if any, has been deposited by them under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC shall be refunded to them as also, the judgment/ order of sentence dated 29.11.2000 rendered by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh whereby the revision petitioners Criminal Revision No.323 of 2002 -2- were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each under Section 325 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and also convicted and sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.150/- each under Section 323 of IPC and in default of payment of the fine, the defaulter was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days. The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that on 29.3.1997, Ms. Chand Tara made a statement before the police in the terms that on 24.3.1997 at about 4:00 P.M, she went to the house of her paternal aunt. Mukhtiar Hassan, her father met her near a Mango Tree. He asked her as to why she visited her paternal aunt's house and restrained her from doing so. She replied that the dispute is between her father and her paternal aunt and she was at liberty to go there. Mukhtiar Hassan and her uncle Vakil Hussain started giving beatings to her. On receipt of information in relation to this occurrence, her mother Hadri Begum came at the spot. Vakil Hussain gave a danda blow which landed on the nose of Hadri Begum and blood started oozing out of it. Mukhtiar Hassan also caused beatings to Hadri Begum. On the basis of the statement of Ms. Chand Tara, the case was registered. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate for trial of the accused. Both the accused were charged under Sections 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 325 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations, the prosecution examined PW1 Ms. Chand Tara, PW2, Hadri Criminal Revision No.323 of 2002 -3- Begum, PW3 Dr. M.P. Singh, PW4 P.D. Jain, PW5 SI Labh Singh and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication. They did not adduce evidence in their defence. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/ sentence, they went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh with the modifications in the judgment of the trial Court as noticed supra. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with their conviction/ sentence, both the accused have preferred this revision. None has come forward to argue on behalf of the petitioners. I have heard the learned counsel for U.T. Chandigarh, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The conviction has been attacked on the ground that `Danda' with which Hadri Begum PW was assaulted has not been recovered. Mere non-recovery of this weapon of offence when the evidence of this stamped witness otherwise establishes that she had sustained injuries with this weapon, hardly belies her testimony. The prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard just because of this reason. Miss Chand Tara and Hadri Begum PWs being daughter and wife respectively of the accused Mukhtiar Hassan, in the common course of human conduct could not be expected to Criminal Revision No.323 of 2002 -4- have roped in Mukhtiar Hassan falsely. The prosecution version has also been assailed on the ground that albeit the occurrence took place within the public view yet none from the public has been examined as a witness. This being a fight amongst members of the family, no member of the public would have come forward to become a witness. In generality, in such matters, the public remains apathetic. On appraisal of the entire evidence, it emerges out that the conviction calls for no interference. Consequently, it is upheld. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioners have undergone three months of the actual sentence. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial since 1997. It implies that this incidence is more than 11 years old. Taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances, the sentence of both the petitioners is reduced to the already undergone (three months each). However, the amount of fine inflicted upon the revision petitioners is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- each. The difference of fine shall be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On deposit, a sum of Rs.2,000/- shall be paid to the complainant Ms. Chand Tara and an equal amount shall be paid to her mother Hadri Begum. In the event of default of deposit of the difference of fine within the aforesaid period, the defaulter shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. If this amount is not deposited, the trial Court shall send intimation in this regard to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, who will take necessary steps to send the defaulting petitioner to the prison for serving the aforesaid period of rigorous imprisonment. The Criminal Revision No.323 of 2002 -5- Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the learned trial Court as well as the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh at the earliest possible. March 24, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No