IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2001 Date of decision: 12th February, 2009 Ram Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. AG Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by ten petitioners, namely Ram Kumar, Shri Ram, Ram Parshad, Parhlad, Munga Ram, Hardwari, Parkash, Rohtash, Vijay Singh and Suresh. They were named as accused in case FIR No. 74 dated 26.05.1993 registered at Police Station Siwani, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 IPC. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Sube Singh. He stated that he was resident of village Mithi. His two elder brothers Mehtab Singh and Balbir Singh were married with Vedo and Dharma in village Achapur respectively. On 20th May, 1993, there was a dispute between his brother Balbir Singh and his wife Dharma. About the conduct of Balbir Singh, Vedo wife of Mehtab Singh had informed her parents on 20th May, 1993. On the night intervening 20th and 21st May, 1993 accused along with 7-8 persons came in one Commando Jeep and one Tata Jeep in the village. Accused Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2001 Ram Kumar was armed with Kulhari and other accused were armed with Lathis. Ram Kumar has given an axe blow on the head of Sube Singh complainant. In the occurrence, Sube Singh and his brother Balbir Singh were injured. Two courts below have held accused petitioners to be guilty for offence under Section 148, 323, 325 read with 149 IPC. Trial Court had sentenced the accused under Section 148 IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 323, 149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 325, 149 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, petitioners had filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhiwani, who affirmed the findings of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr.Deepak Garg has stated that presence of two eye witnesses was stamped at the place of occurrence and they had deposed regarding occurrence. He has further submitted that presence of the witnesses was natural at the spot as in the dead of night, they were supposed to be at their houses. Learned counsel has further stated that therefore, he will not assail conviction of petitioners. He has submitted that since the sentence awarded under Section 325 IPC is nine months and the occurrence pertains to year 1993, petitioners have already suffered a protracted trial of 16 years. He has further submitted that at the time of occurrence, Munga Ram was aged 80 years. He has further canvassed that he is unable to state whether these accused are alive or not. Counsel has further submitted that since the accused and complainant parties are relations, therefore, in case petitioners are sent behind the bars, matrimonial 2 Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2001 relations of Balbir Singh and Mehtab Singh with their wives will become sour for all times to come. He has further stated that sentence awarded upon the petitioners be reduced to already undergone and complainant party be compensated by awarding a fine as compensation. I find merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. Advocate General Haryana appearing for the State has also stated that in case petitioners are sent behind the bars, harmony and peace will be disturbed. She has stated that she has no objection in case conviction is maintained and suitable fine is imposed upon the petitioners and the same is paid as compensation. Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioners is reduced to already undergone, subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The amount of fine shall be paid as compensation to the injured. Trial Court shall call upon the accused to deposit the fine. Trial Court shall afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to deposit the fine. In case fine is not deposited, benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to the petitioners. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 12, 2009 rps 3