-1- Criminal Revision No.1450 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1450 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 22, 2010. Telu Ram ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Telu Ram along with his sons co-accused Sultan and Baljit (non-petitioners) was convicted and sentenced -2- Criminal Revision No.1450 of 2003. under Section 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') by the trial Court. For the former offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and for the latter offence he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, the lower appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded to him under Section 324 of the Code while letting the sentence under Section 323 of the Code and the fine and the default clause under Sections 324 and 323 of the Code remain unaltered. Sultan and Baljit (non-petitioners), co-accused of the petitioner, were extended the benefit of probation by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing in spite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court. I have heard the learned State counsel and have perused the records of the case. Complainant Ramphal had purchased about 8 acres -3- Criminal Revision No.1450 of 2003. of agricultural land in Hisar District about two/three years prior to the occurrence which took place on 10.8.1995. He used to cultivate the said land. The land of petitioner Telu Ram and Hawa Singh, uncle of complainant Ramphal adjoined the land of the petitioner. Telu Ram had attacked the complainant with a `Gandasi' by asking him as to why he had purchased this land. Sultan and Baljit Singh (non-petitioners), son of the petitioner, had given `lathi' blows to the complainant. Ramphal (complainant) appeared as P.W.3 and supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed that the petitioner gave him `Gandasi' blow on his left eye while telling him as to why he had purchased the land in question. Subhash (P.W.4), an eye-witness, has fully supported the version given by the complainant. Dr. B.L. Bagri (P.W.1), who had medico-legally examined the complainant, had observed an incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on the lateral angle of his left eye besides observing three other injuries. This incised wound was opined by the Doctor to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. This injury was found to be simple in nature after getting it x-rayed. The medical evidence furnished by Dr.B.L.Bagri (P.W.1) furnishes complete corroboration to the ocular version given by the complainant and Subhash, eye-witness. The petitioner, except denying the prosecution allegations and pleading false implication simpliciter, could not produce any evidence in defence to dislodge the case of the prosecution. The injury was caused by the petitioner on the vital part i.e left eye -4- Criminal Revision No.1450 of 2003. of the complainant Ramphal (P.W.3). As such, the petitioner has rightly been convicted and sentenced in this case, as mentioned above. Under the circumstances, I do not see any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 22, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE