Criminal Revision No.516 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.516 of 1993 Date of decision: February 6, 2008 Chanan Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mrs. Baljeet Kaur Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present revision petition preferred by Chanan Singh is directed against the dismissal of appeal by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar as petitioner was convicted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and was sentenced under Section 326 IPC to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioner was prosecuted in a private complaint preferred by Charan Singh. Criminal Revision No.516 of 1993 2 It is sated in the complaint that on 14th July, 1985 in the area of Village Bhoya Fatehgarh, Balwinder Singh son of the complainant, who was posted in Army and had come on a leave, lodged a protest for backing out from the transaction, which was entered between the parties regarding exchange of land. It is stated that the accused had an altercation with daughter-in-law of Joginder Kaur. Due to the dispute regarding exchange of land, the protest made and altercation being the grievance, it is alleged that on 14th July, 1985 in the morning at 5.00 a.m., petitioner chased the child of Joginder Kaur and gave a toka blow on his head. Name of the injured child is Gurdip Singh. He was medicolegally examined on 14th July, 1985 at 2.30 p.m. Injury found was an incised wound 3 cm x 1 ½ cm over the right side of back of skull, 7 cm above the nape of the neck. Underlying bone was partially cut. Mrs. Mann has contended that in the present case, occurrence has taken place on 14th July, 1985, whereas complaint was lodged on 21st September, 1985. Thus, there is a delay of more than 2 ½ months. Delay cannot be taken into consideration in the present case, as it has come in evidence that parties were close neighbourers and had been making an effort for the compromise, due to which delay had taken place. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that a child has suffered an injury and Charan Singh PW-2, grand-father and Joginder Kaur PW-3 witnesses were the last persons to screen the real offender and substitute the accused. In the present case, petitioner is the sole accused. Two courts below have appreciated the evidence and has placed reliance upon the testimony of the witnesses. Findings of fact cannot be disturbed by the Revisional Court. Criminal Revision No.516 of 1993 3 Having failed to convince me to set aside the conviction, Mrs.Mann has stated that in the present case, occurrence is of July 1985. A period of 23 years has elapsed. It has further been stated that petitioner remained in custody for about 2 months and 12 days. It has been submitted that sending the petitioner behind the bars after 23 years will not be just and as the parties are close neighbourers, it may disturb peace, amity and harmony prevailing between the parties. I am conscious of the submissions made by Mrs.Mann but the fact that the injured was a child and head injury was given, cannot be brushed aside. In my view, ends of justice will be met in case sentence of petitioner is reduced from three years to nine months and fine is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.25000/-. Fine shall be deposited on or before 30th April, 2008. Non deposit of fine by the petitioner shall be considered as dismissal of the present revision petition. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 6, 2008. rps