Crl. Revision No.159 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.159 of 2003 Date of Decision: March 15, 2010 Davinder Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent And Crl. Revision No.2135 of 2002 Narinder Pal Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR No.2135 of 2002. Mr. Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR No.159 of 2003. Mr. J.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant. SABINA, J. Vide this judgment Criminal Revision No.159 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.2135 of 2002 would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same judgment. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 148,452,326, Crl. Revision No.159 of 2003 2 324/323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala vide judgment dated 04.05.1999. Vide the order of the even date the petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each under Section 148 read with Section 149 I.P.C. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 452 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Petitioner Amrik Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 324 I.P.C. whereas remaining convicts were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 324 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Petitioners Amrik and Satpal were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each under Section 323 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred appeals and the same were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 17.10.2002. Hence, the present revisions. The prosecution story in brief as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment reads as under :- "Sum and substance of the prosecution case is that on 3.12.89 at about 8.00 a.m., Gurcharan Singh, who is resident of Sheranwala Gate, alongwith his family members was watching Mahabharat serial on television, while sitting in his house. Satpal, son of Sardar Chand armed with kirpan, Shingara Singh and his son Gurdip Singh, both armed with Crl. Revision No.159 of 2003 3 soties, Amrik Singh, son of Shingara Singh armed with kirpan, Devinder Singh alias Kaka, another son of Shingara Singh empty handed, Narinder Pal Singh alias Lalli, armed with soti, Darshan Singh, son of Teja Singh, Jagjit Singh, son of Darshan Singh, Preetinder Singh, son of Bhagwant Singh who were all empty handed, accompanied by 4/5 other persons, whose names were not known to Gurcharan Singh came to his house. Said persons made entry to the house by breaking open the main door and they started calling names. Then, Gurcharan Singh, his two sons Ajit Singh, Sarabjit Singh as well as his brother Jaswant Rai, came out. Then, Amrik Singh gave two kirpan blows on the person of Ajit Singh, which hit him on the left leg on its front side and on the right foot Satpal then gave kirpan blow which hit Jaswant Rai on his left cheek. All the accused then dragged out Gurcharan Singh and his son Sarabjit Singh and gave them fist and stick blows. All these persons then threw brick bats and soda water bottles and damaged the television antena. These persons then entered the house of Jaswant Rai, which is situated adjacent to the house of Gurcharan Singh and threw brick bats and soda water bottles over there. On alarm being raised, several persons reached the spot. Mangat Ram, son of Moti Ram had also reached the spot. He had witnessed the occurrence. On alarm raised by the injured as well as Mangat Ram, assailants fled away from the spot. Motive for causing occurrence is stated to be old enmity between Gurcharan Crl. Revision No.159 of 2003 4 Singh and Shingara Singh regarding godown qua which there is litigation pending. Now, Shingara Singh and his sons induced Satpal accused, younger brother of Gurcharan Singh, to agree to sell his immovable property and they want to take possession of ancestral property of Gurcharan Singh and others, about which the case is pending in the court and the stay order has been issued. Soon after the occurrence, Gurcharan Singh got lodged FIR in Police Station Kotwali, Patiala at 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, SI Hardev Singh came to the spot. He prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence and took into possession pieces of glass, brick-bats, broken pieces of door vide separate recovery memo. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The injured were then medically examined by Dr. Padma Gupta in Hedley Family Dispensary, Sanauri Gate, Patiala. As injuries no.1, 2 and 3 pertaining to the injured Ajit Singh were kept reserved subject to x-ray examination, x-ray examination was got conducted. Fracture of second and third meta-tarsal bones of right foot near the distal ends were found. Except these two injuries, all other injuries on the person of all the injured were found to be simple in nature. Thereafter, accused Shingara Singh, Amrik Singh, Darshan Singh and Gurdip Singh were arrested on 4.12.89. Remaining accused were apprehended on 10.12.89. Accused Satpal had produced one kirpan without sheath and accused Amrik Singh also produced one kirpan which was taken into possession Crl. Revision No.159 of 2003 5 vide separate recovery memo.” During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners have not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148,452,326,324,323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 1989 and the petitioners are facing the criminal proceedings since then. Petitioners are not previous convicts and they have not indulged in any criminal activities during the pendency of these proceedings. Petitioners are the sole bread earners of their families. All the petitioners have undergone more than three months of actual sentence. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to already undergone by them. The injury under Section 326 I.P.C. was on the big toe of the injured Ajit Singh and was thus on non vital part of the injured. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant, has submitted that no ground for reduction of sentence is made out as all the petitioners had come to the place of occurrence and had inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant party in connivance with each other. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners to already undergone by them and enhance the sentence qua fine. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 148,452,326,324,323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. All the petitioners are directed to pay Additional fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Out of the additional fine, deposited by the petitioners, Crl. Revision No.159 of 2003 6 Rs.20,000/- be released to each of the injured i.e. Ajit Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Jaswant Rai and Gurcharan Singh. Petitioners are directed to deposit the additional fine before the trial court within two months from today, failing which, both the revisions shall stand dismissed. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) March 15, 2010 JUDGE Anand Crl. Revision No.159 of 2003 7