Parbhu Nath & Anr. v. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, with Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioners. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. JORA SINGH, J. Parbhu Nath and Shiv Nath, filed the instant revision petition to challenge the impugned judgment dated 7.5.2003, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. By the said judgment, appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 14.9.1998 and order of sentence dated 15.9.1998, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, was dismissed. As per the judgment of conviction dated 14.9.1998 and order of sentence dated 15.9.1998, petitioners were convicted under Sections 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to CRR No. 1124 of 2003 -2- undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year alongwith a fine of ` 1000/- to each of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. They are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years alongwith a fine of ` 2000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.7.1992, at about

2.15 p.m. Sohan Lal was present near the house of Parbhu Nath. Parbhu Nath and 2-3 boys started abusing Sohan Lal. Complainant – Chanderkant Sharma, enquired from Parbhu Nath and the boys as to why they are abusing his father Sohan Lal, then Parbhu Nath armed with iron rod gave 2-3 blows on his head. Shiv Nath armed with iron rod gave blow to Sohan Lal. Raula was raised attracting his sister Kanchan Jot Sharma and when she tried to rescue the complainant party from the clutches of the accused then Parbhu Nath gave blow to Kanchan Jot Sharma. Number of persons from the mohalla came at the spot then accused had fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Injured had gone to police station to lodge the report. Statement of the complainant was recorded, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Then injured were sent to the hospital for medico-legal examination. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared.

Accused were arrested. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court. CRR No. 1124 of 2003 -3- Accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 323/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence but no defence evidence was led. After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and from the perusal of the evidence available on file, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. Appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 14.9.1998 and order of sentence dated 15.9.1998, preferred by the petitioners, was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 7.5.2003, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on the file. After arguing for some time, when learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment then stated that occurrence is dated 24.7.1992. Petitioners are the first offenders and belong to poor families. Parbhu Nath has already undergone 6 months and 6 days whereas Shiv Nath has CRR No. 1124 of 2003 -4- already undergone 6 months and 8 days out of the actual sentence. Argued the impugned judgment is not challenged on the point of conviction. Only requested to take lenient view. Learned State counsel argued that petitioners have caused injuries to Sohan Lal, Chanderkant Sharma and Kanchan Jot Sharma. Injury on the person of Sohan Lal was found to be grievous in nature. There was no previous enmity amongst the parties.

Injury found to be grievous in nature was not possible by fall. No reason to disbelieve the injured. No doubt learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the impugned judgment on the point of conviction and only requested to take lenient view but even then I want to scrutinize the evidence as to whether occurrence had taken place as per prosecution story or not. Sohan Lal injured, Kanchan Jot Sharma and Chanderkant Sharma, appeared in Court and stated that petitioners armed with iron rods had caused injuries to them. Ex. P-1 is the copy of MLR of Sohan Lal, Ex. P-3 is the copy of MLR of Chanderkant Sharma and Ex. P-4 is the copy of MLR of Kanchan Jot Sharma. Dr. Prem Parkash had medico-legally examined the injured. Doctor has not stated a word that injury found to be grievous in nature was possible by fall. Earlier to the present occurrence there was no previous enmity amongst the parties.

No reason to disbelieve the injured. Presence of eye-witness at the time of occurrence was natural. Simple allegation of the petitioner was that case is false. No defence evidence was led that petitioners had not caused injuries. After going through the CRR No. 1124 of 2003 -5- statements of the injured, doctor, I am of the opinion that the petitioners had caused injuries to Sohan Lal, Chanderkant Sharma and Kanchan Jot Sharma. Occurrence was dated 24.7.1992, at that time Parbhu Nath was 30 years old and Shiv Nath was 23 years old. Petitioners are the first offenders and belong to poor family. Parbhu Nath has already undergone 6 months and 6 days whereas Shiv Nath has already undergone 6 months and 8 days out of the actual sentence. They are to become hardcore criminals if again sent to jail to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the lower Court. Keeping in the nature of offence and antecedents of the petitioners, they are directed to undergo imprisonment already undergone (in case of Parbhu Nath 6 months and 6 days and in case of Shiv Nath 6 months and 8 days).