CIVIL APPEAL 753 of 2005 on 9 October 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Criminal Revision No.753 of 2005 Date of Decision:April 07,2010

Om Parkash and others

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

Versus

State of Haryana

..........Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina

Present: Mr.Anhul Singh,Advocate forMr.Arshvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Benniwal, Deputy AdvocateGeneral, Haryana**

Sabina, J.

Petitioners were convicted for an offence under Sections 323,325148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated1.10.2002 by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Pehowa. Vide orderdated 5.10.2002, petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-under Section 323 IPC; they were further sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 325IPC and they were also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of six months with a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 148IPC.However, out of total fine, 3/4[th] share was ordered to be given to the Criminal Revision No.753 of 20052complainant and injured in equal shares after expiry of the period oflimitation. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal and thesame was allowed qua Dharam Pal and Ravinder and was partly allowedqua accused- Om Parkash, Siri Chand, Pawan Kumar and Sukhvir by theAdditional Sessions Judge(Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Kurushetra videjudgment dated 2.4.2005. Accused-Sukhvir was acquitted of the chargesunder Section 148 and 325 IPC and his conviction was upheld underSection 323 IPC and he was ordered to be released on probation onfurnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety each inthe like amount to maintain peace and to be of good behaviour for a periodof one year. Accused- Pawan Kumar, Siri Chand and Om Parkash wereacquitted of the charge under Section 148 IPC . Hence, the present revisionpetition.

The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 9.10.1997 ASISurender Pal alongwith other co-officials was coming back fromhis illaqa and Manoj Kumar met him near Pehowa Chowk and gotrecorded his statement to the effect that he is an agriculturist andtheir land is near Brahmjoni religious place where Moni Baba hadconstructed their dera where he worshipped. On 5.10.1997, hehad gone to dera at about 10.30 p.m. taking meals for his uncleHaridas. Haridas was relaxing in his room after having his mealsand he (Manoj) came out side the dera in order to give bread tothe dog. In the meantime, Ravinder and Sukhvir came on the deraand Sukhvir raised a lalkara that he be caught. He (Manoj) went Criminal Revision No.753 of 2005

inside the room running and started bolting the room from insideand in the meantime Sukhvir and another person with him startedgiving jerks to the door and the door was opened. Om Parkashgave an iron rod blow on his mouth and he went inside the innerroom. His uncle Haridas also got up and they started giving brickblows. He recognized Om Parkash, Ravinder, Siri Chand, Pawanin electric light. They caused injuries by brick blows, which hithim on various parts of his body and his uncle also sustainedinjuries. There was nobody at the time of incident. The accusedwent away after breaking window and had given brick blows tohim and his uncle. They came to their house and got themselvesmedico-legally examined. Om Parkash etc. caused injuries tothem because they nursed a grudge since a case pending betweenthem. After recording the statement, ASI Surender Pal made hisendorsement on it and sent the same to the police station on thebasis of which present case was registered. During investigation,rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared,statements of witnesses were recorded and accused were arrested.After completion of investigation, challan was presented in theCourt for commencement of trial against the accused.

3. Prima facie, charges under sections 148 and 323,325 read withsection 149 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accusedpersons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course ofarguments, has submitted that the petition qua petitioner No.4-Sukhvir bedismissed as withdrawn.

Ordered accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted thathe does not challenge the conviction of the petitioners No. 1 to 3 underSections 323,325 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonmentmay be reduced to already undergone by them. Learned counsel has furthersubmitted that the occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 1997and the petitioners are facing criminal proceedings since then and thepetitioners are the only bread earners of their family.

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 petitionersNo. 1 to 3 and enhance the sentence qua fine.

Hence, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 323325 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment ofpetitioners No. 1 to 3 is reduced to already undergone by them. Thesentence qua fine is enhanced by Rs.10,000/- each. The additional fine ofRs.10,000/- each deposited by the petitioners be released to injured Manoj.Petitioners No. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the additional fine within twomonths from today failing which the petition shall stand dismissed.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

April 07, 2010arya

(Sabina) Judge