IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 1008 of 1999
Date of decision : 14th August, 2008
Mohinder Singh and another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. G.S.Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present revision petition has been preferred by Mohinder
Singh son of Bani Singh and Jai Bhagwan son of Surja Ram. They were
nominated as accused in case FIR No. 167 dated 05.08.1989 registered at
Police Station Sector 31, U.T. Chandigarh under Sections 323/ 324/ 326/
34 IPC. FIR was recorded on the statement of Bhagwat son of Choto
Motho resident of village Karsan, U.T. Chandigarh. The statement was
recorded by ASI Krishan Lal at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh. It
was stated therein that petitioner – Mohinder Singh was residing in the
same vicinity, in the neighbourhood of Bhagwat and on 3rd August, 1989 at
11.00 p.m., when Bhagwat was sleeping along with his family the accused
came in a drunken condition. Mohinder Singh is said to have given a kick
blow to the charpai of Bhagwat, due to which he woke up and abuses were
also given to Bhagwat. Mohoinder Singh is said to have taken a knife.
CRR 1008 of 1999 2
When protest was made by Bhagwat and his wife Sabhapati, a knife blow
was given in the penis of Bhagwat hitting on his right thigh. It is stated that
Jai Bhagwan caught hold of Sabhapati and Mohinder Singh also gave knife
blow to Sabhapati in her right armpit. The FIR was investigated. Report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Prosecution examined PW-1
Sabhapati, PW-2 Hira Lal. Dr. A.S.Gill appeared as PW-3. PW-4 ASI Pala
Ram and PW-5 Dilbagh Singh were also examined.
The courts below have relied upon the testimony of witnesses
and came to conclusion that petitioners committed offence under Section
326 IPC. Injuries suffered by Sabhapati and Bhagwat have been
reproduced in the judgment of the trial Court, therefore, they need not be
made part of this judgment. Petitioners were convicted by the Court of
Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Chandigarh under Section 326, 324, 323,
34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years under Section 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.700/- each, in default
of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days. Both
accused were further sentenced under Section 324 IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.300/- each and in
default to undergo ten days rigorous imprisonment. Accused were further
sentenced under Section 323 IPC to undergo three months rigorous
imprisonment and also under Sections 326/324/323 to three months
rigorous imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
I have read the order of learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh,
in which conviction of the accused was maintained however, sentence was
reduced from two years to one year.
Counsel for the petitioner states that he is conscious that a
revisional Court has a very limited scope and that the findings of fact
recorded by two courts below cannot be disturbed. When, pointedly asked,
learned counsel for petitioners has failed to point out any perversity or
CRR 1008 of 1999 3
illegality in the judgments of the courts below. At this stage, counsel for the
petitioners state that in the present case, occurrence is nineteen years old.
Petitioners had already undergone one month and that petitioners, before
the occurrence and even after the occurrence have committed no offence
and are leading a life of honest and peaceful citizens. Counsel for the
petitioner further states that petitioners are the sole bread earners of their
family and large families are dependent upon them.
Taking into consideration the antecedents, protracted trial and
petitioners’ responsibilities towards their families, ends of justice will be
fully met in case their sentence is reduced to already undergone. However,
sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- qua each accused. The
amount of Rs.30,000/-, if realized, shall be disbursed to the complainant as
compensation. In case, sentence of fine, as enhanced, is not deposited,
petitioners shall not be entitled to benefit of reduction in sentence and their
revision petition shall deem to have been dismissed.
With these observations, present revision petition is disposed
off.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
August 14, 2008
rps