CRR Nos.3409 of 2010 & 68 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) Crl. Revision No.3409 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.7.2011 Rakesh & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents AND (2) Crl. Revision No.68 of 2011 (O&M) Jai Parkash ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This judgment shall dispose of above mentioned two revision petitions i.e. Crl. Revision No.3409 of 2010 and Crl. Revision No.68 of 2011, as both the revisions have arisen out of a common judgment. Petitioners had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, under sections 323 & 325 read with Section 34 IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 28th October, 2009 and order of sentence dated 29th October, 2009 and sentenced as under:- CRR Nos.3409 of 2010 & 68 of 2011 2 U/S 323 IPC - To undergo simple imprisonment for six months. U/S 325 IPC- To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine they shall further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners preferred appeal against the judgment of their conviction/sentence, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 17th December, 2010. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the courts below, the petitioners have approached this court through the instant Criminal Revisions. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset state that they are limiting their prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and do not assail the judgment of conviction. They state that they are conscious that scope in the revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot be re-appreciated or re-evaluated. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of petitioners is maintained, the court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Briefly, the prosecution case runs thus: On 10th August, 2001 at about 5.00 P.M. Chander Pal son of Vijay Singh was standing in front of house of Lohre under a tree in CRR Nos.3409 of 2010 & 68 of 2011 3 Rasta Sare-aam. He was residing with Sukhdei, his grand mother, in village Behbalpur as Sukhdei was having no brother etc. Jai Parkash son of Hukam, who belonged to family of Lohre, was also standing there. There had been a litigation between Lohre and his grand mother Sukhdei. Therefore, family of Lohre was nourishing a grudge against him. While joking, Jai Parkash started misbehaving with Chander Pal and started beating him, on which he caught Jai Parkash and brought him on the ground. In the meantime, Jai Parkash called Kartar, who carrying iron pipe along with Rakesh son of Lohre and Daya wife of Lohre reached at the spot. All of a sudden, Kartar son of Lohre gave blow with iron pipe on elbow of his right hand. He also gave pipe blows on the wrist of his left hand, left arm and on buttock. He was given kicks and slaps by accused Rakesh, Daya and Jai Parkash. When he raised cry, he was saved by Puran milkman and Amar Singh son of Ramphul of village Behbalpur, otherwise he would have received more injuries. On the statement of Chanderpal, DDR No.22 dated 10th August, 2001 was recorded. Medical examination of the injured persons was got conducted from General Hospital, Ballabgarh. On receipt of X-ray report, wherein fracture was reported, FIR was lodged and investigation was carried out by ASI Vijay Singh. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused (petitioners herein) was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie case under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC, charge was framed against the accused/petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. CRR Nos.3409 of 2010 & 68 of 2011 4 To substantiate its case against the accused/petitioners, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and closed the evidence. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. They, however, did not produce any evidence in their defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them and sentenced them as already indicated above. Appeal preferred before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad was also dismissed, vide judgment dated 17th December, 2010. On a perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioners guilty of the charge framed against them. There is no infirmity or illegality in the findings given by the courts below. The conviction of the petitioners is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, have not assailed the judgment of conviction. They have, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the grounds that the petitioners are main bread winner of their family and not a previous convict. They have stated that they are conscious that the scope in revision is very limited as evidence of the witnesses cannot CRR Nos.3409 of 2010 & 68 of 2011 5 be re-appreciated and re-evaluated. Learned State counsel had already placed on record custody certificates of accused/petitioners Kartar Singh and Rakesh, according to which they have already undergone custody of 02 months and 17 days. Learned State counsel submits that same is position with regard to the other two petitioners. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners shall be reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is, however, enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.10,000/- each to be paid as compensation to the victim/complainant. The fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case fine aforesaid is not deposited within the stipulated period, the modification in quantum of sentence shall stand withdrawn and the petitioners shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as awarded by the trial court. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petitions are dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 25, 2011 'rajpal'