IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2001
Date of decision: 12th February, 2009
Ram Kumar and others
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. AG Haryana for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present revision petition has been filed by ten petitioners,
namely Ram Kumar, Shri Ram, Ram Parshad, Parhlad, Munga Ram,
Hardwari, Parkash, Rohtash, Vijay Singh and Suresh. They were named
as accused in case FIR No. 74 dated 26.05.1993 registered at Police
Station Siwani, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 IPC.
The FIR was lodged at the instance of Sube Singh. He stated
that he was resident of village Mithi. His two elder brothers Mehtab Singh
and Balbir Singh were married with Vedo and Dharma in village Achapur
respectively. On 20th May, 1993, there was a dispute between his brother
Balbir Singh and his wife Dharma. About the conduct of Balbir Singh, Vedo
wife of Mehtab Singh had informed her parents on 20th May, 1993. On the
night intervening 20th and 21st May, 1993 accused along with 7-8 persons
came in one Commando Jeep and one Tata Jeep in the village. Accused
Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2001 2
Ram Kumar was armed with Kulhari and other accused were armed with
Lathis. Ram Kumar has given an axe blow on the head of Sube Singh
complainant. In the occurrence, Sube Singh and his brother Balbir Singh
were injured.
Two courts below have held accused petitioners to be guilty
for offence under Section 148, 323, 325 read with 149 IPC. Trial Court had
sentenced the accused under Section 148 IPC to undergo six months
rigorous imprisonment, under Section 323, 149 IPC to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months and further to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for nine months under Section 325, 149 IPC.
Aggrieved against the same, petitioners had filed an appeal
and the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Bhiwani, who affirmed the findings of conviction and sentence awarded by
the trial Court.
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate appearing along with
Mr.Deepak Garg has stated that presence of two eye witnesses was
stamped at the place of occurrence and they had deposed regarding
occurrence. He has further submitted that presence of the witnesses was
natural at the spot as in the dead of night, they were supposed to be at
their houses. Learned counsel has further stated that therefore, he will not
assail conviction of petitioners. He has submitted that since the sentence
awarded under Section 325 IPC is nine months and the occurrence
pertains to year 1993, petitioners have already suffered a protracted trial of
16 years. He has further submitted that at the time of occurrence, Munga
Ram was aged 80 years. He has further canvassed that he is unable to
state whether these accused are alive or not. Counsel has further
submitted that since the accused and complainant parties are relations,
therefore, in case petitioners are sent behind the bars, matrimonial
Criminal Revision No. 1283 of 2001 3
relations of Balbir Singh and Mehtab Singh with their wives will become
sour for all times to come. He has further stated that sentence awarded
upon the petitioners be reduced to already undergone and complainant
party be compensated by awarding a fine as compensation.
I find merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. Advocate General Haryana
appearing for the State has also stated that in case petitioners are sent
behind the bars, harmony and peace will be disturbed. She has stated that
she has no objection in case conviction is maintained and suitable fine is
imposed upon the petitioners and the same is paid as compensation.
Accordingly, sentence awarded upon the petitioners is
reduced to already undergone, subject to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-
each. The amount of fine shall be paid as compensation to the injured.
Trial Court shall call upon the accused to deposit the fine. Trial Court shall
afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to deposit the fine. In case
fine is not deposited, benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to
the petitioners.
With these observations, present revision petition is disposed
off.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
February 12, 2009
rps