Criminal Revision No. 1018 of 2002 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

were named as accused in case FIR No.50 dated 05.03.1995 registered at Police Station City Ferozepur under Sections 323/324/326 read with Section 34 IPC. Their co-accused Gurdeep Singh was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. However, the trial Court sentenced the accused petitioners as under: Name of accused u/s R.I. Fine In default Pritam Singh 326 IPC Three year Rs.1000/- One month 324 IPC One year Nil - 324/34 IPC One year Rs.500/- 15 days 324/34 IPC Six months 323/34 IPC Six months - Nil - - Criminal Revision No.1018 of 2002 2 Tarlok Singh 326/34 IPC One year Rs.1000/- One month 324 IPC Two years Rs.500/- 15 days 324/34 IPC One year 324/34 IPC One year 323 IPC Six months Nil Nil Nil - - - Gurnam Singh 326 IPC One year Rs.500/- 15 days 324/34 IPC One year 324/34 IPC One year 323 IPC Six months Nil Nil Nil 323/34 IPC Six months Nil - - - - All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the same, petitioners had filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court upheld the conviction, however, reduced the sentence awarded under Section 326 IPC upon Pritam Singh from three years to two years rigorous imprisonment with no change in other sentences awarded upon him. Similarly, the sentence awarded upon Tarlok Singh under Section 324 IPC was reduced from two years to 1 ½ years rigorous imprisonment with no change in other sentences awarded upon him. However, sentence of Gurnam Singh was not reduced. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has filed an affidavit of Lakhminder Singh Jakhar, PPS-I, Superintendent, Central Jail, Ferozepur, stating that petitioners Gurnam Singh and Tarlok Singh were released from jail on having completed their sentence after they were granted benefit of remissions by the State Government. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in these circumstances, he will not press the present revision petition qua petitioners Gurnam Singh and Tarlok Singh. Criminal Revision No.1018 of 2002 3 Hence, the present revision petition qua petitioners Gurnam Singh and Tarlok Singh is dismissed as not pressed. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Pritam Singh had caused an injury on the right knee, which resulted into fracture of the Patela, which is a non-vital part of the body. It is further contended that occurrence in the present case had taken place about 15 years ago. Petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. It is further submitted that petitioner has not committed any such offence before or after registration of the present case. For ready reference, facts of the present case, as culled out by the lower appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, can be reproduced as under: “2. In nut-shell, the case of prosecution as unfolded by Gurmakh Singh s/o Bachan Singh, complainant injured is that on 3.5.95 at about 1.30 PM, he along with his father, his father’s sister’s husband Nand Singh and Jang Singh was coming from village Jhugga Nihanga Wale to Ferozepur for effecting compromise in dispute, which had taken place earlier in between the parties. When they reached near Bagdadi gage Pritam Singh armed with sword, Gurdip Singh armed with gandasa, Tarlok Singh armed with dang and Gurnam Singh also armed with dang came there. Accused Gurnam Singh exhorted that they be taught a lesson for earlier causing injuries to them. Thereafter, Pritam Singh gave a kirpan blow on the person of his father Bachan Singh, which landed over the left side of his jaws and near left ear. Gurdip Singh gave two gandasa blow on the person of his father, but when his father tried to ward off, it resulted into infliction of injuries on his left hand between thumb and first finger and on the right palm respectively. Tarlok Singh then gave two dang blows, which landed on the left side of his head above forehead and on the right side of his head. On receipt of the above said Criminal Revision No.1018 of 2002 4 injuries, his father fell down on the ground. Due to fear, he did not come forward. When his father was lying on the ground Pritam Singh gave Kirpan blow hitting right knees of his father. Thereafter, Tarlok Singh and Gurnam Singh gave dang blows on the person of his father, when he was lying on the ground. One dang blow resulted into infliction of injury on the left cheek below the ear, whereas, another dang blow on the left cheek. Similarly, Tarlok Singh also gave two dang blows hitting his father on left cheek and left elbow. Accused Gurnam Singh also gave dang blow, which landed on the left leg just above the ankle joint. He along with Nand Singh as well as his father raised alarm Mar Ditta Mar Ditta upon which the accused fled away from the spot along with their respective weapons. The complainant and his uncle (Phuphar) rushed Bachan Singh to civil hospital, Ferozepur, where he was medicolegally examined and treated.” Counsel for the petitioners has stated that since the injured Bachan Singh has appeared as PW-5 and his testimony has been duly corroborated by Gurmukh Singh PW-6, therefore, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the petitioner Pritam Singh. However, he has urged that taking into consideration various mitigating circumstances, the sentence awarded upon the petitioner Pritam Singh be adequately reduced. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners. The petitioner Pritam Singh is already in the corridors of Courts from last about 15 years and has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial. He is now aged about 45 years. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded upon the petitioner Pritam Singh is reduced from two years to nine months rigorous imprisonment. Criminal Revision No.1018 of 2002 5 With the modification in sentence ordered above, present revision petition qua Pritam Singh petitioner is disposed of. March 22, 2010 [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE