In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 304 of 2001 Date of decision: February 17, 2009 Braham Parkash and others ... Petitioners versus State of Haryana. ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rajat Goyal, AAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J. Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 22.2.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as “the petitioners”) against the judgment dated 6.10.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each under Section 324 IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 323 IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.4.1993, at about 5.00 p.m. the complainant Satpal along with his father Shiv Naraian went to the fields, and saw that the tractor of Ram Avtar was lying parked near the heap of straw, Sube Singh was standing near the tractor, whereas, Braham Parkash and Ved Parkash were standing in the trolley, and were out to lift the heap of wheat straw. Gian Parkash and Shyam Parkash were also present there. Shiv Naraian (father of the complainant) exhorted Sube Singh not to lift the straw heap. On this, Sube Singh started abusing Shiv Naraian and also slapped him. Braham Parkash, Ved Parkash and Shyam Parkash armed with lathi, Sube Singh armed with Jailey and Gian Parkash armed with spade attacked them. Gian Parkash inflicted spade blow on his left shoulder and second blow on his back side and third blow on his right hand near Crl. Revision No. 304 of 2001 -2- *** elbow. As a result of the injuries he fell down, Ved Parkash inflicted lathi blow on his forehead and and Braham Parkash inflicted lathi blow on his face. Accused Shyam Parkash caught hold of his father and Sube Singh inflicted him jelly blows. On hearing hue and cry Krishna Devi (complainant's brother's wife) and his mother reached the spot and came at their rescue. The accused also inflicted injuries on the person of Krishna Devi. The injured were removed to the hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid statement a case was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were charged under Sections 325, 324, 323, 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Shiv Naraian (PW1), Krishna (PW2), Shiv Naraian son of Bhup Singh (PW3), Dr. R. Likkha, MO Government Hospital, Rewari (PW4), Gajraj (PW5) and Jaswant Singh (PW6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction and appeal filed by them also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Nothing has been argued in order to assail conviction. The story as set out by the prosecution stands duly established from the testimony of the injured witnesses. However, since the x-ray report did not indicate injury on the person of Satpal on the tip of the right olecranon in the nature of fracture, no depth of bone cut has been described, therefore, the aforesaid injury suffered by him cannot be said to be grievous in nature. No injury was found grievous on the person of Krishna Devi and Shiv Naraian, as such the petitioners could be convicted only for the offence under Sections 324/323 read with Section 149 IPC. Since the trial court has not taken note of the fact that the accused five in number attacked the injured Shiv Naraian, Satpal and Krishna Devi, therefore, Section 149 IPC could be attracted instead of Section 34 IPC. Consequently, the sentence awarded by the Lower Appellate Court with the aid of Section 34 IPC is converted into Section 149 IPC. Crl. Revision No. 304 of 2001 -3- *** While coming to quantum of sentence, the occurrence took place way back in the year 1993 and the petitioners have already suffered a lot on account of the protracted proceedings. The petitioners as well as the injured are close relatives. Admittedly, they are the first offenders. No bad antecedents have been brought on record in order to establish that they are habitual offenders. Resultantly, ends of justice would be met if some lenient view is taken regarding sentence. All the injuries on the person of the injured were on the non vital parts of the body. Resultantly, revision petition is partly accepted, the sentence awarded against the petitioners under Section 325 IPC is set aside and sentence passed against them for other offences is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, they are further directed to pay Rs.6000/- each to the injured persons on account of compensation, which will be shared by them equally, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed in toto. Fine is converted into costs of litigation. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari for compliance. February 17, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge