Crl.R. No. 1090 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.R. No. 1090 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.7.2009.
...
Ram Kumar
................ Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Sh. A.K. Jindal, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
This is a revision petition against judgment dated 23.4.2009
passed by Sh. Dinesh Kumar Mittal, Additional Sessions Judge,
Yamuna Nagar, vide which the appeal of the revisionist has been
partly accepted and the revisionist has been acquitted under Section
326 IPC, but convicted under Section 325 IPC and his conviction
under Section 323 IPC recorded by Ms. Kumud Gugnani, Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment dated 3/4.8.2007,
was upheld.
The case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.1999, Rajbir s/o
Naroti Ram made a statement to the police that he alongwith
Dharampal and Satpal, shared 7 acres of agricultural land, out of
Crl.R. No. 1090 of 2009 -2-
which 3-1/2 acres is in cultivating possession of Dharampal and
Satpal and the remaining 3-1/2 acres of land is in his cultivating
possession. The land is still joint. The suit for partition is pending
before Niab Tehsildar and was fixed for 25.11.1999. 1 acre of land
has been given on lease by Dharampal and Satpal to one Ram Kumar
s/o Soran Lal. Both the complainant and his cousin brothers have a
common passage to approach their fields measuring 2 gathas, from
the time of their forefathers. The lessee Ram Kumar, on being
instigated by his brother Dharampal drove tractor from the common
passage. The complainant tried to stop him, on which Dharampal
caught hold of him and Ram Kumar hit him with the stick on his right
eye. He fell down and thereafter, Ram Kumar hit him with the sticks
on his neck, cheeks and other body parts. Raj Kumar and Shiv Dayal,
who were working in the near by fields have witnessed the
occurrence. They tried to rescue him but the accused fled away from
the scene of occurrence.
Charge under Section 323, 326 read with Section 34 IPC
was framed against both the accused, Ram Kumar and Dharampal.
The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the
accused, examined PW-1 Rajbir – complainant, PW-2 ASI Arvind
Kumar, PW-3 SHO Dharamvir Singh, PW-4 Doctor Hukam Chand,
PW-5 Doctor Dinesh Goyal and PW-6 Doctor Sushmita Kaushik and
closed the evidence.
The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
they denied the allegations.
The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (trial Court),
Crl.R. No. 1090 of 2009 -3-
acquitted Dharampal accused, but convicted Ram Kumar under
Sections 323 and 326 IPC. Ram Kumar was ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months under Section 323
IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years
under Section 326 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
Ram Kumar preferred an appeal against the judgment dated
3/4.8.2007 passed by Ms. Kumud Gugnani, Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Yamuna Nagar. The Ist Appellate Court, however, acquitted
the accused under Section 326 IPC, but convicted him under Section
325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 6 months. The sentence under Section 323 IPC was
maintained. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Feeling dissatisfied, with the abovesaid judgments dated
3/4.8.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar
and judgment dated 23.4.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Yamuna Nagar, the petitioner has preferred the present revision
petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction
recorded by the Ist Appellate Court, but has submitted that out of the
substantive sentence of 6 months, the petitioner has already
undergone incarnation for a period of 5 months and prayer has been
made for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.
The prayer has been opposed by the State counsel.
I have considered the submissions made by both the sides
and have also gone through the record of the case.
So, far as conviction recorded by both the Courts below is
Crl.R. No. 1090 of 2009 -4-
concerned, there is a concurrent finding. That finding is based upon
ocular, as well as, medical evidence, which corroborates each other.
So, the conviction under Section 323 IPC recorded by the trial Court
and affirmed by the Ist Appellate Court and conviction under Section
325 IPC recorded by the Ist Appellate Court, stands affirmed.
Now, reverting to the quantum of sentence, the petitioner has
been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6
months. He has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 5
months. The occurrence relates to the year 1999. So, the sentence
stands reduced to the period already undergone. But the petitioner is
directed to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the
complainant-Rajbir. That amount is ordered to be deposited before
the trial Court before his release. On realisation of that amount, the
said amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant under
proper receipt and identification.
With the abovesaid observations, the petition stands
disposed of.
( K.C. Puri )
22.7.2009. Judge
chugh