IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2007 of 2006 Date of decision: 6th December, 2011 Gurmej Singh @ Gurmukh Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-Gurmej Singh @ Gurmukh Singh on 24th May, 1995 at about 7.15 p.m. in the area of village Wadala Johar had caused six injuries to Tejinder Singh PW-1. The injuries were caused both, from the incised and blunt side of Datar. Out of the six injuries suffered by Tejinder Singh, injury No.1 was in the middle of left half of the head, 10 cm above left ear; injury No.2 was on the left side of nose; injury No.3 was on the medial angle of the left scapula; injury No.4 was a fracture of left forearm, 3 ½ cm above left wrist joint; and injuries No.5 and 6 were abrasions on the right knee joint and right shoulder joint respectively. The petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Sections 326, 324 and 323 IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Amritsar vide its impugned judgment dated 9th December, 2005 held the petitioner guilty of the above said offences and vide a separate Criminal Revision No.2007 of 2006 order of even date sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months under Section 326 IPC. He was further sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The petitioner was also sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The Court of Sessions Judge, Amritsar upheld the conviction recorded and maintained the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the petitioner, and had dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 14th September, 2006. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed. Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner, has assailed conviction of the petitioner on the following grounds: (a) That there is a delay in lodging the report and reaching of special report to the Illaqua Magistrate and the delay has been used for consultations and deliberations. It is submitted that on the ground of delay alone, this Court should discard the prosecution case; 2 Criminal Revision No.2007 of 2006 (b) That the prosecution story is unnatural, improbable and unconvincing as the petitioner would not go alone to commit theft of wheat; (c) That the eye-witness, Mohan Singh PW-2, examined by the injured Tejinder Singh PW-1, is an interested witness. Since no independent witness has been examined, this Court should record acquittal of the petitioner; (d) Lastly, it is urged that in case the Court finds no merit in the above said three arguments, taking into consideration that occurrence had taken place in the year 1995 and the petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial as a mitigating circumstance, this Court should reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner. Delay, in itself, is not a ground to record acquittal of the accused. However, it will always put the Court on guard to examine the prosecution case meticulously and to sift the grain from the chaff. In the present case, petitioner is the only accused, who has been named by the complainant. It is not a case where the complainant has involved a number of accused and this Court should find a hole in the prosecution case. Secondly, this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction will not re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. Simply 3 Criminal Revision No.2007 of 2006 because the accused would not go alone to commit the theft, is not sufficient to set aside the findings recorded by both the courts below holding the prosecution version to be improbable, unnatural and unconvincing. And thirdly, in the present case, injured himself has come forward to depose against the accused-petitioner. Injured will be the last person to allow the real assailant to go scot-free. Complainant-injured will not substitute the accused as his effort, till last, will be to put the real assailant on trial and seek punishment for him. Thus, the first three arguments advanced to doubt the prosecution case have failed to cause any dent in the same. Hence, conviction of the petitioner recorded by the trial Court is affirmed. However, the alternative submission made by counsel for the petitioner merits some attention. Occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 24th May, 1995. The petitioner is in the corridors of Court for the last about 16 years. At the time of framing of amended charge on 9th December, 2005, the petitioner was aged about 49 years. It is stated that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family and has a large family to support. Furthermore, he has not committed any offence before or after registration of this case. Taking into consideration sufferance of a protracted trial, age and antecedents of the petitioner as mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 326 IPC is reduced from three years to one-and-a-half year rigorous imprisonment and 4 Criminal Revision No.2007 of 2006 under Section 324 IPC from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine and default clause on both the counts is maintained. The sentence awarded under Section 323 IPC is also maintained. With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 6, 2011 rps 5