Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2452 OF 2002.
DATE OF DECISION : 20-11-2009.
Dharam Pal and others.
...... PETITIONERS
Versus
State of Haryana.
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. A.S.Kalra, Advocate and
Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional A.G., Haryana.
***
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment
dated 16.10.2002 rendered by the court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Hisar, vide which it dismissed the appeal against the judgment of
conviction dated 11.11.1998 and order of sentence dated 12.11.1998
rendered by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar convicting the
accused i.e. the present revision-petitioners and awarding them
sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months
Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -2-
each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 148 of
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). R.I. for a period of
six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for the commission
of offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month each.
R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each for commission
of offence under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months. R.I.
for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for
commission of offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149
IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six
months. It was further ordered that on deposit of fine, a sum of
Rs.2000/- out of the same would be paid to the complainant and the
other injured as compensation in equal shares and the remaining
amount shall be the costs of proceedings. It was also ordered that
substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Hawa Singh son of Surjit had
got a case registered against Sadhu Ram – complainant and his brother
Basakhi about one and half month before this occurrence and since then
they were inimical towards them. On 11.10.1989 at about 6.00 AM,
Sadhu Ram alongwith his brother Basakhi were sitting near a tubewell
and having tea whereas Smt. Phuli wife of Basakhi was sitting near the
engine of the tubewell when in the meantime accused Dharam Pal
armed with Gandasi and accused Ram Singh son of Phulia, Manga son
of Mai Lal, Hawa Singh son of Surjit and Chander son of Sarupa all
Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -3-
armed with lathis came their and raised Lalkara that complainant and
his brother would be taught a lesson as they had quarrelled with them
about a one and half month ago. They caused injuries to the
complainant and his brother Basakhi with their respective weapons. On
alarm being raised one Govardhan son of Ramji Lal and Smt. Phuli who
was sitting near the engine of the tubewell, came there and rescued
them from the clutches of the accused and thereafter they ran away with
their respective weapons.
3. Case was registered on the statement of Sadhu Ram –
complainant after he was declared fit to make the statement by the
Doctor. Injuries on the person of Sadhu Ram and Basakhi were got
medically examined. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After
completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed
against the accused i.e. the present revision-petitioners for their trial for
offences under Sections 148/323/324/326 IPC read with Section 149
IPC. The accused were charged accordingly by the learned trial court
to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused,
the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. PW1 is Sadhu Ram,
injured – complainant; PW2 is Basakhi another injured, PW3 is Smt.
Phuli, eye-witness; PW4 is Laddu Ram; PW5 is Murari Lal; PW6 is
Dr. S.K.Batta; Statement of Ram Mehar was also recorded as PW6 and
PW7 is Chander Bhan, ASI.
5. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were
recorded by the learned trial court in which they denied the assertion of
Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -4-
the prosecution witnesses and had taken the plea that they were falsely
implicated in this case. However, they did not lead any evidence in
their defence.
6. Learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused
as aforementioned after hearing Public Prosecutor for the State and
learned counsel for the accused and after going through the evidence.
Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the trial court, an appeal was
preferred by the present revision-petitioners, which was dismissed by
the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hisar vide
impugned judgment against which the present revision petition has
been filed.
7. I have heard Mr. A.S.Kalra, learned counsel for the
revision-petitioners and Mr. S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate
General, Haryana and have gone through the record carefully.
8. Conviction of the present revision-petitioners has not been
challenged by the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner. Even
otherwise, perusal of evidence brought on the record fairly goes to
show that concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based
on cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of both the
injured and Smt. Phuli and the same are duly corroborated by medical
evidence and hence, concurrent findings recorded by the courts below
cannot be said to be perverse in any manner.
9. It is settled principle of law that while exercising revisional
jurisdiction, this court cannot re-evaluate and reappreciate the evidence
until and unless it comes to the conclusion that the courts below,
Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -5-
committed an illegality in the conduct of trial or the procedure adopted
was illegal or findings recorded were perverse and grossly erroneous
resulting into miscarriage of justice. In the present case, deposition of
both the injured witnesses i.e. Sadhu Ram – complainant, PW1 and
Basakhi, PW2 and another eye-witness Smt. Phuli, PW3 is consistent
on all the material points. Hence, there is nothing as to why their sworn
testimony be disbelieved.
10. However, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the
revision-petitioners that the occurrence had taken place on 11.10.1989
and that hence, the present revision-petitioners are facing criminal
proceedings for the last about 20 years. He has further argued that one
of the accused Manga is at present 82 years of age, Balwant is 57/58
years of age, Chander is 52/53 years of age, Hawa Singh is 46 years of
age and Dharam Pal is 48/49 years of age. It is further contended that
they had already undergone imprisonment for 20 days during trial and
about 5 months after conviction. Hence, it is contended that the
quantum of sentence of the revision-petitioners be reduced to the period
already undergone by them during trial of the case and after conviction.
11. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioners placed reliance
upon Lal singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR(Crl.) 299,
in which, on the facts and circumstances of that case, a coordinate
Bench of this Court has reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone in offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
He has also placed reliance upon Vekategowda and others v. State of
Karnataka, 2007(1) RCR(Crl.) 152, wherein accused faced legal battle
Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -6-
for 20 years and sentence was reduced from five years to one year by
the Hon’ble Apex Court.
12. As per the case of prosecution only revision petitioner
No.1 – Dharam Pal was armed with sharp edged weapon i.e. Gandasi
whereas other accused were armed with Lathis. Hence, injury for
commission of offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149
IPC has been attributed to accused – Dharam Pal only. All the revision-
petitioners are facing criminal proceedings for the last about 20 years.
One of the accused is aged about 82 years, accused Balwant and
Chander are more than 50 years of age. Hence, there is force in the
argument of learned counsel for the revision-petitioners that they
deserve some leniency in the matter of sentence.
13. Hence, while maintaining the conviction of the accused for
offences under Sections 148/323/324/326 IPC read with Section 149
IPC, the substantive sentence of accused – Dharam Pal who was armed
with Gandasi is reduced to one year for commission of offence under
Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and however, the amount of fine
is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. While maintaining the substantive
sentences awarded for other offences, the amount of fine is enhanced to
Rs.2000/- for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC, Rs.1000/-
for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and Rs.1000/- for
commission of offence under Section 148 IPC.
14. Substantive sentences of remaining revision-petitioners i.e.
Manga, Hawa Singh, Chander and Balwant is reduced to the period
already undergone by them during trial and after conviction. However,
Crl. Revision No.2452 of 2002 -7-
amount of fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/- each for commission of
offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Rs.2000/-
each for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC, Rs.1000/- each
for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC and Rs.1000/- each
for commission of offence under Section 148 IPC.
15. Out of the total fine to be recovered, Rs.40,000/- shall be
paid to injured Basakhi as compensation and Rs.10,000/- shall be paid
to another injured, Sadhu Ram as compensation.
16. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed except for
modification in the quantum of sentence as aforementioned.
17. The accused Manga, Hawa Singh, Chander and Balwant
shall stand discharged from their bail bonds.
18. Bail bond and surety bonds of accused – Dharam Pal stand
cancelled. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take
necessary steps to comply with the judgment with due promptitude
keeping in view the applicability of provisions of Section 428 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and submit his compliance report within
two months.
19. The District and Sessions Judge concerned is also directed
to ensure that the directions are complied with and that compliance
report is sent within the time limit, to this Court.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA )
November 20, 2009. JUDGE
‘om’