Gopi Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Satbir Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Gopi Ram, his three sons Harpal, Satnarain and Subhash, were nominated as accused in case FIR No.96 dated 08.05.1993 registered at Police Station Urlana under Sections 323/325/34 IPC. Chandro wife of Chander Jogi was admitted in General Hospital, Panipat. Statement of Chandro was recorded at hospital by HC Ram Chander. In the statement made, it was stated that at 2.00 p.m. Gopi, who was elder brother of the husband of Chandro, was raising construction of wall of house in the street. Younger brother of Gopi, Chander Jogi had raised an objection. Gopi started abusing Chander Jogi. The complainant came out of the house and stood by her husband Chander Jogi. Gopi went inside his house and came armed with a Lathi. His three sons Harpal, Satnarain and Subhash followed him. All were having Lathis in their hands. Harpal on reaching at the spot caused Lathi blow on the head, right hand and left leg of the complainant Chandro. Gopi Criminal Revision No.440 of 2003 2 gave several Lathi blows to Chander Jogi. On noise raised, Ramesh and Ashok, sons of the complainant were attracted at the spot. They attempted to rescue their parents but they were also caused injuries. Karan Singh Patwari and Jaipal were also attracted at the spot and rescued the injured. The complainant was admitted in the hospital, whereas her husband Chander Jogi and sons Ashok and Ramesh, after giving first-aid were discharged from the hospital. Complainant Chandro appeared as PW-1. She reiterated what was stated in the FIR. However, she made an improvement that all accused had given Lathi blows. Chander Jogi, younger brother of Gopi appeared as PW-3. Sons of the complainant Ashok Kumar and Ramesh appeared as PW-5 and P-6 respectively. Dr.S.S. Wadhwa PW-2 had conducted radiological examination of Chandro and had found fracture of shaft right humerus. The trial Court held the accused guilty of offence under Section 323 and 325 read with section 34 IPC and the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed. The appellate Court upheld the conviction, maintained the sentence and had dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted since four persons PW-1 Chandro, PW-3 Chander Jogi, PW-5 Ashok Kumar and PW-6 Ramesh were injured in the occurrence and they had deposed against the petitioners, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioners. However, counsel has submitted that during the pendency of Criminal Revision No.440 of 2003 3 the present revision petition, Harpal, who as per the FIR had caused injuries to Chandro, for which offence under Section 325 IPC is made out, has died. Counsel has further submitted that petitioners were taken into custody on 12th November, 2002 and they were ordered to be released by this Court on 7th April, 2003. Therefore, they have undergone about 5 months out of the actual sentence of one year awarded under Section 325 read with section 34 IPC. Learned counsel has prayed that sentence awarded upon the petitioners be reduced to already undergone. This Court is conscious of the fact that when the wall was being raised, on exchange of some hot words, the occurrence had ensued and all the petitioners, who were armed with Lathis, had caused injuries to four persons. Ramesh had suffered three simple injuries, Ashok Kumar one simple injury, Chander Jogi seven simple injuries and the complainant Chandro suffered six injuries, out of which two were grievous. If number and nature of the injuries is an aggravating circumstance, the fact that occurrence had taken place in 1993 and about 17 years are going to elapse is another mitigating circumstance. It cannot be ignored that petitioners have suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for about 17 years. This Court also has to keep in mind that author of the grievous injury, Harpal has already expired. Furthermore, parties are closely related to each other, as Gopi Ram and Chander Jogi are real brothers. Injured and accused belong to the family of two brothers. Therefore, this Court is of the view that sentence cannot be reduced to already undergone, even though accused have already undergone five months of their actual sentence. However, taking into consideration that parties are residing in the same village, are neighbourers and are closely related, an opportunity can be granted to the petitioners to maintain good conduct, behaviour and peace for a period of one year so that they are Criminal Revision No.440 of 2003 4 able to rehabilitate themselves. Counsel for the petitioner has also stated that in the last 17 years, no other incident has taken place between the parties. It is also submitted that Gopi Ram is now more than 85 years of age. Taking all these factors into consideration, petitioners Gopi Ram, Sat Narain and Subhash are ordered to be released on probation. They will furnish personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat with an undertaking to maintain peace, good conduct and behaviour for the period of probation. However, cost of litigation qua each petitioner is assessed as Rs.3000/-. They will be called upon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat to furnish bonds and to deposit the cost. The amount of cost so deposited, shall be paid as compensation to Chandro. In case the petitioners commit any breach of terms and conditions of the bonds, they will be called upon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat to undergo the sentence awarded. Failure to deposit cost of litigation shall render the present revision petition as dismissed. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. February 15, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE