CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1979 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 20, 2011 Dilbagh Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. N.P.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. N.D.S.Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Upon their conviction for offences under Sections 323, 452, 427 IPC, the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for their conviction under offences under Sections 148 and 452 IPC each and for RI for six months each under Sections 323, 427 IPC alongwith some fine. The said sentences have been upheld in the appeal. The petitioners accordingly have filed the present revision petition. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1979 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: The FIR was registered on a complaint made by Kulwant Singh. Complainant has alleged that he had returned to his house after watering his fields, when Dilbagh Singh armed with brickbat, Lakhbir Singh armed with brickbat, Tirath Singh, Jodh Singh, Piara Singh armed with dangs, Kulbir Singh and Sukhbir Singh armed with brickbats alongwith Jatinder came and tress-passed into his house after opening the bolt of the gate from inside. Joginder Kaur, mother of Kulwant Singh attempted to stop the altercation, when Piara Singh gave her dang blow on her right arm. Kulbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh threw brickbats, which hit on the head and back of his mother. Jatinder gave kicks to his mother. When the complainant came forward to rescue her mother, Dilbagh Singh threw brickbats, which hit on his left cheek. Lakhbir Singh also threw brickbats as a result of which his teeth were broken. Tirath Singh had caught hold of the complainant from his waist, when the remaining petitioners caused damage to the tractor of the complainant. The complainant raised alarm, attracting Jaswant Singh and Satnam Singh to the scene, who rescued the complainant. The cause of this fight was that a few days ago, Piara Singh had hurled abuses, leading to this altercation. Prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. The petitioners made statements in their defence and also examined one witness, Mohan Singh. The petitioners were CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1979 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: accordingly convicted for offences under Sections 452, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC. However, they were acquitted of the offence under Section 325 IPC. The petitioners filed an appeal whereas the complainant had filed a revision for enhancement of sentence and also against the order of acquittal for offence under Section 325 IPC. The Appellate Court has upheld the conviction with some modification in the sentence and dismissed the revision fled by the complainant. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR and in support relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to urge that delay makes the report to get bereft of advantage of spontaneity, danger creeping in for introduction of a coloured version, exaggerated account or a concocted story. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had considered this submission and found that there was nothing on record to suggest that there was any fabrication. The incident took place at 10.30 P.M. On 6.12.2001 and the injured were examined on the very next day i.e. 7.12.2001. The alleged injuries were duly deposed to by the doctors and the prosecution witnesses and were supported by the M.L.Rs. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained on the ground that the parties were in the process of affecting a compromise. When it did not materialize, the FIR was CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1979 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: lodged. In fact, the counsel for the petitioners even had sought time, at the time of arguing the present revision on the ground that matter was likely to be settled amicably by way of compromise. This adjournment was granted on the condition that if the compromise did not materialize and this was found only to be a pretext to seek adjournment, then the petition would be liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Today, the counsel candidly concedes that the petitioners have not succeeded in reaching a compromise with the complainant. Though he may have lost his right to make submissions on merits, still, the submissions made by counsel have been considered but are found without any basis. His plea that the petitioners could not be identified due to darkness is without any basis in the background that injured-complainant knew them well and were attacked at their house. There is no merit in any of the pleas raised by the petitioners. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. October 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE