Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2452 OF 2002. DATE OF DECISION : 20-11-2009. Dharam Pal and others. ...... PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana. ..... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S.Kalra, Advocate and Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional A.G., Haryana. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2002 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 11.11.1998 and order of sentence dated 12.11.1998 rendered by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar convicting the accused i.e. the present revision-petitioners and awarding them sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -2- each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). R.I. for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for the commission of offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month each. R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months. R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for commission of offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. It was further ordered that on deposit of fine, a sum of Rs.2000/- out of the same would be paid to the complainant and the other injured as compensation in equal shares and the remaining amount shall be the costs of proceedings. It was also ordered that substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Hawa Singh son of Surjit had got a case registered against Sadhu Ram – complainant and his brother Basakhi about one and half month before this occurrence and since then they were inimical towards them. On 11.10.1989 at about 6.00 AM, Sadhu Ram alongwith his brother Basakhi were sitting near a tubewell and having tea whereas Smt. Phuli wife of Basakhi was sitting near the engine of the tubewell when in the meantime accused Dharam Pal armed with Gandasi and accused Ram Singh son of Phulia, Manga son of Mai Lal, Hawa Singh son of Surjit and Chander son of Sarupa all Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -3- armed with lathis came their and raised Lalkara that complainant and his brother would be taught a lesson as they had quarrelled with them about a one and half month ago. They caused injuries to the complainant and his brother Basakhi with their respective weapons. On alarm being raised one Govardhan son of Ramji Lal and Smt. Phuli who was sitting near the engine of the tubewell, came there and rescued them from the clutches of the accused and thereafter they ran away with their respective weapons. 3. Case was registered on the statement of Sadhu Ram – complainant after he was declared fit to make the statement by the Doctor. Injuries on the person of Sadhu Ram and Basakhi were got medically examined. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the accused i.e. the present revision-petitioners for their trial for offences under Sections 148/323/324/326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The accused were charged accordingly by the learned trial court to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. PW1 is Sadhu Ram, injured – complainant; PW2 is Basakhi another injured, PW3 is Smt. Phuli, eye-witness; PW4 is Laddu Ram; PW5 is Murari Lal; PW6 is Dr. S.K.Batta; Statement of Ram Mehar was also recorded as PW6 and PW7 is Chander Bhan, ASI. 5. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded by the learned trial court in which they denied the assertion of Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -4- the prosecution witnesses and had taken the plea that they were falsely implicated in this case. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 6. Learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned after hearing Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused and after going through the evidence. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, an appeal was preferred by the present revision-petitioners, which was dismissed by the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hisar vide impugned judgment against which the present revision petition has been filed. 7. I have heard Mr. A.S.Kalra, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the record carefully. 8. Conviction of the present revision-petitioners has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner. Even otherwise, perusal of evidence brought on the record fairly goes to show that concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based on cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of both the injured and Smt. Phuli and the same are duly corroborated by medical evidence and hence, concurrent findings recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. 9. It is settled principle of law that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, this court cannot re-evaluate and reappreciate the evidence until and unless it comes to the conclusion that the courts below, Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -5- committed an illegality in the conduct of trial or the procedure adopted was illegal or findings recorded were perverse and grossly erroneous resulting into miscarriage of justice. In the present case, deposition of both the injured witnesses i.e. Sadhu Ram – complainant, PW1 and Basakhi, PW2 and another eye-witness Smt. Phuli, PW3 is consistent on all the material points. Hence, there is nothing as to why their sworn testimony be disbelieved. 10. However, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioners that the occurrence had taken place on 11.10.1989 and that hence, the present revision-petitioners are facing criminal proceedings for the last about 20 years. He has further argued that one of the accused Manga is at present 82 years of age, Balwant is 57/58 years of age, Chander is 52/53 years of age, Hawa Singh is 46 years of age and Dharam Pal is 48/49 years of age. It is further contended that they had already undergone imprisonment for 20 days during trial and about 5 months after conviction. Hence, it is contended that the quantum of sentence of the revision-petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them during trial of the case and after conviction. 11. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioners placed reliance upon Lal singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR(Crl.) 299, in which, on the facts and circumstances of that case, a coordinate Bench of this Court has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He has also placed reliance upon Vekategowda and others v. State of Karnataka, 2007(1) RCR(Crl.) 152, wherein accused faced legal battle Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -6- for 20 years and sentence was reduced from five years to one year by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 12. As per the case of prosecution only revision petitioner No.1 – Dharam Pal was armed with sharp edged weapon i.e. Gandasi whereas other accused were armed with Lathis. Hence, injury for commission of offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC has been attributed to accused - Dharam Pal only. All the revision- petitioners are facing criminal proceedings for the last about 20 years. One of the accused is aged about 82 years, accused Balwant and Chander are more than 50 years of age. Hence, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the revision-petitioners that they deserve some leniency in the matter of sentence. 13. Hence, while maintaining the conviction of the accused for offences under Sections 148/323/324/326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, the substantive sentence of accused – Dharam Pal who was armed with Gandasi is reduced to one year for commission of offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and however, the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. While maintaining the substantive sentences awarded for other offences, the amount of fine is enhanced to Rs.2000/- for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC, Rs.1000/- for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and Rs.1000/- for commission of offence under Section 148 IPC. 14. Substantive sentences of remaining revision-petitioners i.e. Manga, Hawa Singh, Chander and Balwant is reduced to the period already undergone by them during trial and after conviction. However, Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -7- amount of fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/- each for commission of offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Rs.2000/- each for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC, Rs.1000/- each for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and Rs.1000/- each for commission of offence under Section 148 IPC. 15. Out of the total fine to be recovered, Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to injured Basakhi as compensation and Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to another injured, Sadhu Ram as compensation. 16. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed except for modification in the quantum of sentence as aforementioned. 17. The accused Manga, Hawa Singh, Chander and Balwant shall stand discharged from their bail bonds. 18. Bail bond and surety bonds of accused – Dharam Pal stand cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit his compliance report within two months. 19. The District and Sessions Judge concerned is also directed to ensure that the directions are complied with and that compliance report is sent within the time limit, to this Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 20, 2009. JUDGE 'om'