Chandigarh v. State of Haryana

Present: - Mr.S.S.Kharb, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kartar Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2006 at about 11.00 P.M., complainant Paras Ram was sleeping in his house. Petitioners Pappal and Sumer arrived there and called the complainant outside his house. Pappal inflicted an injury on his left arm by means of an iron rod. Suresh and Raju also gave slaps and fist blows to Paras Ram. Raj CRR No. 2501 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Kumar and Raj Mal, sons of the complainant Paras Ram, arrived at the spot and on seeing them, the petitiones fled away from the spot. On 08.09.2006, Pappal went to General Hospital, Siwani, where he was medico-legally examined and admitted for further treatment. The motive for causing the injuries to Paras Ram was an old enmity. After receipt of X-ray report, FIR was registered on 28.09.2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted the charge sheet before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Finding a prima facie case, the petitioners were charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined Paras Ram complainant-injured as PW-1, Rajmal, eye-witness, as PW2, Raj Kumar, another eye- witness, as PW3, Dr. Karambir Singh as PW4, ASI Sham Sunder as PW5 and has also tendered certain documents. Statements of accused under Section 313 of the CRR No. 2501 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded wherein they pleaded innocence and further stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. In their defence petitioners have examined Dr. Tej Pal as DW1 and tendered MLR Ex.D1. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court held the petitioners guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The fine imposed was deposited by them in the learned trial court. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioners challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence by way of an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, but the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.08.2012. Hence, the petitioners have challenged the judgments of both the courts below before this court by way of criminal CRR No. 2501 of 2012 (O&M) 4 revision petition. The criminal revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before this court on 24.08.2012. At that stage, learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly proposed not to challenge the judgment of conviction on merits. However, he submitted that the sentence was on higher side, therefore, notice of motion was issued for consideration of quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel contends that all the petitioners are first offenders. None of them is required or involved in any other case. He further submits that on account of a village level dispute, the quarrel had taken place, in which the complainant Paras Ram had received only two injuries on the left arm. He further submits that the petitioners are poor persons and there is none in their respective families to look after their small children and old parents. He also contends that the petitioners have already face the protected trial and the appeal for six years. He also submits that during the course of trial and appeals, the petitioners remained on bail but the said concession was never misused by them. Learned counsel for the State has produced the CRR No. 2501 of 2012 (O&M) 5 affidavits of Superintendent District Jail, Bhiwani, showing the custody period undergone by the petitioners which are taken on record. Learned counsel for the State submits that both the courts below have already taken a lenient view while passing the order of sentence, therefore, no further leniency be shown to the petitioners in the quantum of sentence. Though the counsel for the petitioners had proposed not to challenge the verdict of the conviction recorded by both the courts below yet to satisfy the conscience of this court the material available on record has been re-appraised and found that both the courts below have rightly returned the verdict of conviction. However, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners requires modification on the following grounds:- (i)The petitioners are the first offenders; (ii) None of the petitioners is required nor involved in any other case; (iii)They have already faced the protracted trial and appeal for more then six years; (iv)During trial and appeal, the petitioners were CRR No. 2501 of 2012 (O&M) 6 released on bail but they did not misuse that concession; (v)No untoward incident had occurred during the last six years between the petitioners and the complainant side; (vi) The injuries on the person of the complainant were on non-vital part; (vii) The petitioners should be given a chance to mend themselves; and (viii) All the petitioners have responsibility of their children and old parents. As a sequel to the above, the substantive sentence of the petitioners is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them, i.e. two months, five days, as per affidavits of the Superintendent District Jail, Bhiwani, dated 17.10.2012. Each of the petitioners is directed to deposit `5000/- (`5000/- x 4 = `20,000/-) with the learned trial court within 15 days of their release from the custody. The amount of `20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners shall be disbursed to the complainant, Paras Ram, as compensation by the learned trial court after issuing notice to him. If the petitioners failed to deposit the amount of CRR No. 2501 of 2012 (O&M) 7 compensation within the stipulated period then the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court shall enure. The fine imposed by the learned trial court shall remain undisturbed. With the above modification in the order of sentence, the present Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. October 19, 2012 Anoop (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE