Crl.Revision No.158 of 2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.158 of 2008. Date of decision: 13.7.2010. Kailash Chander and another ....................Petitioners v. Shree Krishan and another .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.R.A.Sheoran,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Aman Chaudhary,Advocate for respondent no.1- complainant. Mr.Mahabir Singh Sindhu,Addl.AG Haryana for respondent no.2-State of Haryana. Jaswant Singh.J. Petitioners have filed the present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC, challenging the judgment and order dated 22.9.2005 passed by learned JMIC Charkhi Dadri, whereby they were convicted under Sections 324, read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months; (ii) under Section 452 IPC and to undergo SI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; as also the appellate order dated 12.9.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, upholding their conviction but reducing their sentence to the period already undergone. Briefly noticed the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that respondent no.1-complainant-Shree Krishan and petitioner no.1-Kailash Chander are real brothers. Petitioner no.2-Gajender alias Crl.Revision No.158 of 2008. 2 Rajender Parkash is son of petitioner no.1-Kailash Chander. Thus, the parties are related to each other. Complainant filed a criminal complaint against petitioners under Sections 323,324,452,506 read with Section 34 IPC with the allegations that on 2.10.1995 at about 8.30 am, accused persons entered into his house, firstly abused him and his family members and then attacked him with knives. It was alleged that accused petitioner no.2- Gajender inflicted knife blow on the left elbow of the complainant whereas petitioner no.1- Kailash Chander gave a knife blow on the left side of chest of the complainant. Sharmila-wife of Gajender petitioner no.2-, who was also convicted for the aforesaid offences, but released on probation by the trial court, also gave knife blow on the left hand palm of the complainant. It was further alleged that accused petitioner no.1-Kailash Chander also brought his rifle and threatened to kill the complainant, who was rescued by his family members. The motive behind the occurrence was alleged to be a dispute between complainant and petitioner no.1 over the land owned by their father. The learned trial Court on the basis of oral testimony of complainant which was corroborated by testimony of PW1 Dr.Harbans Lal, who conducted medico-legal examination of complainant-Shree Krishan and PW4 Manmohan son of complainant, PW5 Mukhtiyar Singh (father of petitioner no.1 and complainant) and PW6 Shakuntala wife of complainant held the petitioners guilty and convicted them as noticed above. Against their conviction and sentence petitioners and their co-accused Smt.Sharmila Devi (wife of petitioner no.2-Gajender) filed an appeal. However, during the course of hearing of the appeal on 12.9.2007 both the petitioners, who Crl.Revision No.158 of 2008. 3 were accompanied by their counsel Mr.Mahavir Singh, made a statement to the following effect:- “Stated that we do not challenge the convition. We want to argue on sentence.” On the same day their counsel Mahavir Singh made a statement on behalf of co-accused Sharmila Devi to the effect that she did not challenge her conviction and her release on probation. As a necessary fallout, conviction of all three accused was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal of Smt.Sharmila Devi was dismissed in toto, however, since petitioners had challenged their sentence so they were heard on the quantum of sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge keeping in view the relationship between the parties, and the period undergone by the petitioners, reduced the sentence imposed upon the petitioners to the period already undergone. Hence the present revision petition. At the time of arguments, Mr.R.A.Sheoran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that due to twist of tongue the petitioners made a wrong statement that they did not challenge their conviction and only wanted to argue on sentence, whereas they meant to say that they did not challenge their sentence but wanted to argue on conviction. In my considered opinion, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is neither here nor there. Challenging conviction alone and giving up appeal on the point of sentence would not have helped petitioners in any manner. Once they accept their sentence, they automatically accept their conviction also. Moreover, this argument is also unacceptable on the ground that at the time when the petitioners made Crl.Revision No.158 of 2008. 4 aforesaid statement, their counsel Mr.Mahavir Singh, Advocate was present in the Court and even he made statement on behalf of Smt.Sharmila Devi that she did not challenge her conviction and the order releasing her on probation. On merits also the petitioners have no case. The case against them stands proved to the hilt. Not only PW1 Dr.Harbans Lal, an independent witness, who conducted medico-legal examination of complainant corroborated the version of the complainant but even PW5 Mukhtiyar Singh (father of petitioner no.1 and grandfather of petitioner no.2) also supported the case of the complainant. Had the occurrence not taken place in the manner alleged by the complainant, PW5 Mukhtiyar Singh being father of petitioner no.1 and grandfather of petitioner no.2 would not have falsely deposed against them. Furthermore, Smt.Sharmila Devi wife of petitioner no.2 did not challenge at all her conviction and sentence. Any innocent person would fight his/her wrong conviction/sentence with tooth and nail, which is not the case here. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 13.7.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge