Crl. Revision No. 2085 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2085 of 2005 Date of Decision: September 21, 2010 Manoj Kumar ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 11.8.2003. Vide order of the even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 1.10.2005 Hence, the present revision petition. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- “On 12.11.1996, one questy was received from Police Station, Division No.2, Ludhiana, that one Kuldip Kaur wife of Sarup Singh has been admitted in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, due to the Crl. Revision No. 2085 of 2005 2 injuries received by her and so ruqa bearing no. E-1988/96 dated 12.11.96 be obtained from police station, Division no.2, Ludhiana and investigation be done. On this, ASI Sangram Vir obtained the ruqa from police station, Divison no.2, and reached Civil Hospital Ludhiana. He sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of injured Kuldip Kaur to make the statement, but the Doctor declared her unfit to make the statement, but the Doctor declared her unfit to make the statement. On 13.11.1996, ASI Sangram Vir obtained MLR no. DSK/ML/639/96 dated 12.11.1996 in respect of Kuldip Kaur and reached Civil Hospital to record the statement of Kuldip Kaur. She was declared fit by the Doctor to give the statement. Accordingly, the statement of Kuldip Kaur was recorded by ASI Som Nath to the effect tat she is resident of Indra Colony. One Manoj Kumar son of Krishan Kumar is residing infront of their house. On 10.11.1996 at about 8.30 P.M., she was standing on her main gate and her sons Romi Singh and Balkar Singh were installing electric lights on their roof due to Diwali. Manoj Kumar using fireworks in the street. She asked Manoj Kumar that she is not feeling well and so he should not use fireworks infront of the door. On this, Manoj Kumar told her back that he will use the crackers there only. Her sons Romi Singh and Balkar Singh also stopped Manoj Kumar, but he did not agree. On this, Manoj Kumar lighted one cracker and threw towards her which hit injuries received by her and so ruqa bearing no. E 1988/96 dated 12.11.96 be obtained from police station, Division no.2, Ludhiana and investigation be Crl. Revision No. 2085 of 2005 3 done. On this, ASI Sangram Vir obtained the ruqa from police station, Division no.2, and reached Civil Hospital Ludhiana. He sought opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of injured Kuldip Kaur to make the statement, but the Doctor declared her unfit to make the statement. On 13.11.2996, ASI Sangram Vir obtained MLR no. DSK/ML/639/96 dated 12.11.1996 in respect of Kuldip Kaur and reached Civil Hospital to record the statement of Kuldip Kaur. She was declared fit by the Doctor to give the statement. Accordingly, the statement of Kuldip Kaur was recorded by ASI Som Nath to the effect that she is resident of Indra Colony. One Manoj Kuamr son of Krishan Kumar is residing infront of their house. On 10.11.1996 at about 8.30 P.M., she was standing on her main gate and her sons Romi Singh and Balkar Singh were installing electric lights on their roof due to diwali. Manoj Kumar was using fireworks in the street. She asked Manoj Kumar that she is not feeling well and so he should not use fireworks infront of the door. On this, Manoj Kumar told her back that he will use the crackers there only. Her sons Romi Singh and Balkar Singh also stopped Manoj Kumar, but he did not agree. On this, Manoj Kumar lighted one cracker and threw towards her which hit her in the left eye. After that the accused ran away from the spot. Her sons Romi Singh and Balkar Singh took her to a private doctor for medicine. On 12.11.2996, her condition deteriorated and so her son Gurcharan Singh admitted her in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where she is under treatment. The above said statement of Kuldip Kaur was Crl. Revision No. 2085 of 2005 4 reduced into writing by the police upon which an endorsement Ex. PW3/B was made. Ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of the case on the basis of which Rapt no.26 dated 13.11.96 was registered. On 276.11.196, a wireless message was received from police station, Division no.2, Ludhiana alongwth MLR of Kuldip Kaur bearing no. DSK/ML/639/96 dated 12.11.1996 vide which the inquiry on the person of Kuldip Kaur was declared as grievous. So, FIR No.298 dt.27.11.1996 was registered in Police Station, Division no.6, Ludhiana. The investigation was done. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. The opinion of the eye specialist Doctor was obtained from Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, who opined that the left eye of Kuldip Kaur has been totally damaged due to the injury suffered by her and is 100% blind. The accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the court against the accused under Section 326 IPC.” During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 326 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the only bread earner of the family and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1996. Petitioner is working as a tea vendor. Petitioner has undergone three and a half months of actual sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had not caused the injury intentionally but the complainant had suffered the injury due to bursting of fire crackers. Crl. Revision No. 2085 of 2005 5 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner to already undergone by him. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 326 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Fine as imposed by the trial Court is stated to have already been deposited by the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that the complainant had lost her one eye in the incident, it would be just and expedient to award compensation to the complainant. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to deposit additional fine of Rs.20,000/- within three months from today and the same be released to the injured Kuldip Kaur forthwith. In case the additional fine is not deposited by the petitioner within three months from today, this petition shall stand dismissed. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) September 21, 2010 JUDGE Anand