CIVIL APPEAL 1801 of 2005 on 2 December 2003

Criminal Revision No. 1801 of 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No. 1801 of 2005 Date of Decision:April 22, 2010

Megha and others

...........Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

..........Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.J.P.Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.Satyavir Singh, Deputy Advocate General Haryana.**

Sabina, J.

Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 326,323read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) videjudgment dated 2.12.2003 by the Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateKaithal. Vide order of even date, petitioners were sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 326/34 IPCwith a fine of Rs.2000/- each. Petitioners were also sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323/34 IPC.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed byAdditional Sessions Judge (I) Kaithal vide judgment dated 8.9.2005 .Hence, the present revision petition.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as under:- That onthe statement of Ram Sarup son of Jai Dayal complainant, Ex.PA,this case was registered. It was stated by the complainant that hisfather was owning 9 ¾ killas of the land. Complainant are threebrothers. The aforesaid land was divided amongst all the threebrothers in equal shares. It was also stated by the complainantthat all the three brothers had given 1¾ killas of land from theirshares to their mother. It was also averred that their father JaiDayal had purchased 3/4killas of land about 14 years ago. Theentire land was divided amongst three brothers in equal shares. Itis allegation that his brother Megha and his wife Bimla had cutgrass from the land of the share of the complainant. Complainanthsad gone to the house of Megha for lodging protest. At this,Megha started calling bad names to complainant. Complainanthad forbidden him from doing so. In the meanwhile, Megha'swife namely Bimal caught hold of complainant and Meghaattacked on the nose of the complainant with Daranti. As aresult, the lower front portion of the nose of the complainant waschopped off. In the meanwhile complainant's brother Ram Diaalso came there, he also gave a lathi blow on the right side of headof complainant. Complainant raised alarm by shouting Mar Diya, Mar Diya which attracted Sultan Singh son of Mukhtiar Singhresident of Dadupur. Sultan Singh is complainant's wife's sister'shusband (Sadu). He could save complainant from the clutches ofthe accused. It was also stated by complainant that the occurrencehad taken place on 5.9.1994 at 8.00 AM.”

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners underSections 326,323 read with Section 34 IPC but has submitted that thesentence qua imprisonment be reduced to already undergone by thepetitioners. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioners No.1 and 3 werereal brothers of injured- Ram Sarup and petitioner No.2 is the wife ofpetitioner No.1. Petitioners are facing criminal proceedings since the year1994. The occurrence had taken place on the spur of the moment.Thereafter, the parties have been residing peacefully. Learned counsel hasfurther submitted that the fine imposed by the Courts below has alreadybeen deposited by the petitioners.

As per the custody certificate placed on record, petitioner No.1 has undergone 5 months and 22 days of actual sentence,whereas,petitioner No.3 has undergone 3 months and 7 days of actual sentence.Petitioner No.2 has undergone 2 months and 22 days of actual sentence.

Conclusion

Accordingly, keeping in view the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the petitioners, it is a fit case where the sentence quaimprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitionersbut the sentence qua fine is liable to be enhanced.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections326,323 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence Criminal Revision No. 1801 of 2005

qua the imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone bythem. However, petitioners No. 1 and 3 are directed to pay additional fineof Rs. 20,000/- each, whereas, petitioner No.2 is directed to pay additionalfine of Rs. 10,000/-. Additional fine be deposited before the trial Courtwithin two months from today by the petitioners failing which this petitionshall stand dismissed. The additional fine paid by the petitioners bedisbursed to the injured- Ram Sarup forthwith.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

April 22, 2010arya

(Sabina) Judge