IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2002 Date of decision : 10.3.2009 1. Teja Singh and others … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Crl.Rev.No.1227 of 2002 Date of decision : 10.3.2009 2. Baldev Singh … Petitioner Versus Teja Singh and others …Respondents Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal. Present :- Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Rajat Goyal, AAG, Haryana assisted by Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate. A.N.Jindal, J. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Crl.Revision No.598 of 2002 and Crl.Revision No.1227 of 2002 arising out of the one and the same judgment. The petition bearing Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2002 has arisen out of the judgment dated 13.3.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment dated 23/25.1.1999 convicting the accused/petitioners (herein referred as “the accused”) under Sections 323, 324, 326, 452, 506 read with Section 149 and 148 IPC and sentencing them as under :- Under Section 148 IPC To undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of rupees 100/-. Under Section 323 IPC To undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of rupees 200/- Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2002 Under section 324 IPC To undergo R.I. for one and half years and to pay a fine of rupees 200/-. Under Section 326 IPC To undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of rupee 300/-. Under Section 452 IPC To undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of rupees 200/-. Under section 506 IPC To undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of rupees 200/-. In short, the prosecution story is that on 21.11.1999 at about 7:30 a.m. Baldev Singh complainant after irrigating his land was scattering Methi seeds, in the meantime, Teja Singh accused armed with a gun, Sher Singh, Jangir Singh and Swaran Singh accused armed with gandasis and Jeet Singh and Surjit Singh accused armed with lathis came there. Teja Singh raised a Lalkara for killing the complainant sowing Methi in the land which was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C. At this Sher Singh accused inflicted with a Gandasi blow at the complainant who raised his hand in defence and the blow fell upon index and middle finger of his right hand. While raising alarm of “MAAR DIYA MAAR DIYA” the complainant ran towards his house. The accused ran after him. The complainant went inside his house. Teja Singh accused stood at the door of the house telling his co- accused not to worry as he was having the gun. The remaining five accused attacked Baldev Singh inside his house. Jangir Singh dealt a Gandasi blow near the left elbow of Baldev Singh who fell down. While he was lying, Jeet Singh and Surjit Singh accused went on giving him Lathi blows. The complainant’s grand mother Jawal Kaur, his brothers Dayal Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Mahender were already present in the house of the complainant. When they tried to rescue the complainant, Swaran Singh accused dealt a Gandasi blow to Jawal Kaur, who fell down and while she was lying on the 2 Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2002 ground, Jeet Singh accused gave a Gandasi blow and Surjit Singh accused gave a Lathi blow to Dayal Singh. Surjit Singh and Jeet Singh accused gave one lathi blow each to Mukhtiar Singh. Jeet Singh also gave a lathi blow to Mohinder Singh. On hearing the hue and cry many persons of the village gathered at the spot. Then the accused alongwith their weapons run from the spot but while retreating from the spot, they were declaring to kill the complainant as and when they got the suitable opportunity. All the injured were taken in a jeep to Civil Hospital, Sirsa by the complainant’s father Balwant Singh. The injured were medically examined. ASI Risal Singh PS Ding was incidentally present in the hospital. On receipt of a medical ruqa about the admission of Jawal Kaur, he contacted the doctor and after obtaining his opinion about the fitness of Baldev Singh, complainant recorded his statement, on the basis of which a case under section 452/326/324/323, 148/149/506 IPC was registered at Police Station Ding. After completion of investigation, all the accused were challaned. Charges against the petitioner under Section 452/324/323, 148/149/506 IPC were framed to which they pleaded not guilty. Sufficient evidence was led by the prosecution in order to establish the offences against the accused. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the allegations levelled against them and they opted to contest. The trial ended in conviction, however, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa reduced the sentence with the following modification:- For offence under Section 148 IPC To undergo R.I. for six months. For offence under section 324 IPC To undergo R.I. for one year. For offence under Section 326 IPC To undergo R.I. for one and half year. For offence under Section 452 IPC To undergo R.I. for one and healf year. For offence under section 506 IPC To undergo R.I. for six months. 3 Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2002 However, no concession was given in the sentence of fine. Arguments heard and record perused. As regards the offence under Section 326 IPC for the injury No.1 on the person of Baldev Singh which was declared grievous in nature is on the phalanx of the index finger. The same appears to be self suffered. The doctor has not denied this fact, therefore, it could be safely observed that the injury No.1 aforesaid was self suffered just to aggravate the offences. Resultantly, the accused could not be convicted for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. A regards the other offences, Teja Singh is now 88 years old, Swaran Singh is about 70 years old, therefore, they are in the evening of their life. The whole of the family has been involved. The only injury stated to be grievous in nature on the right index finger of Baldev Singh appears to be self suffered and the other injuries are simple in nature. The accused have suffered the agony of the trial since 1990. They have already undergone four months of the imprisonment. Now the parties have compromised, Annexure A-1 has been brought on record. Consequently, this petition is partly accepted and the impugned judgment is set aside in the aforesaid terms and the sentence is reduced to already undergone without any alteration in the and sentence of fine. Resultantly, finding no merit in Crl.Rev.No.1227 of 2002, the same is hereby dismissed. [ A.N.Jindal ] Judge 10.03.2009 sd 4 Crl.Rev.No.598 of 2002 COURT NO.41 Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal RESERVED JUDGMENT Crl.Rev.No.1227 of 2002 Baldev Singh Versus Teja Singh and others 5