Crl.R. No.363 of 2004 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CASE NO.: Crl.R. No.363 of 2004
DATE OF DECISION: March 30, 2009
SUKHWINDER SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
PRESENT: MR. DALDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. A.S. GREWAL, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
The petitioner Sukhwinder Singh S/o Gurdev Singh has filed
this revision petition against the judgement of conviction and order of
sentence dated 7.4.2003, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Phul vide which he was convicted under Sections 325/324/323/34 IPC and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1½ years under Section 325 IPC, R.I. for 1
year under Section 324/34 IPC and 6 months under Section 323/34 IPC.
Fine under the aforementioned Sections was also imposed upon him. The
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda
who has upheld the conviction of the petitioner under section 325 IPC and
has reduced the sentence of R.I. for 1½ years to R.I. for 1 year. The
conviction alongwith fine under Section 323 and 324 read with Section 34
have been upheld.
Briefly the facts of the case are that there was a litigation going
on between Gurdev Singh and the complainant Mukand Singh which was
pending in the Civil Court. The complainant had been alleging that the land
measuring 13 kanals had been got transferred by his brother Gurdev Singh
through fraud from their father. As a result the dispute the land had been
Crl.R. No.363 of 2004 -2-
lying vacant for the last 2 years. On 2.12.1996, Gurdev Singh, Sukhwinder
Singh (the present petitioner), Jeeta Singh and Jagga Singh armed with
dangs started ploughing the vacant land with Zitter Tractor. The
complainant Mukand Singh and his wife Sinder Kaur tried to restrain the
accused from ploughing the land. They told the accused that as the land in
dispute was under litigation, therefore, they should wait for the Court
verdict. This infuriated the accused who inflicted kulhari and dang blows
upon the complainant. The wife of the complainant Sinder Kaur was also
given kulhari blow by Gurdev Singh which hit her on the head and another
blow on the left upper arm of Sinder Kaur. The complainant and his wife
raised raula, as a result of which the accused ran away towards the city. The
trial Court after going through the entire evidence led in the case convicted
the accused. However, the appellate Court released Gurdev Singh, father, on
probation as he was 72 years of age and as far as accused Jagga Singh and
Jeeta Singh were concerned, they were found to be juveniles of 13 and 15
years of age, respectively and although were convicted on the point of
sentence. They were ordered to be let out after due admonition and the
petitioner Sukhwinder Singh was convicted as mentioned in the opening
paragraph. The motive for causing injuries on Mukand Singh was that the
accused wanted to plough the land which had been mutated in their favour
on the basis of a Will regarding which civil litigation was going on. They
came on their Zeetar Tractor, but, however, was stopped by the complainant
and his wife that as litigation before the Civil Courts is pending, therefore,
till such time the same is not decided, they cannot plough the land. This act
of complainant and his wife infuriated the accused to cause injuries to them.
Mr. Daldeep Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
Crl.R. No.363 of 2004 -3-
submitted that he does not wish to challenge the findings of the both the
Courts below as far as conviction of the petitioner is concerned. He,
however, submits that that as the incident took place as far back on
2.12.1996, and as more than 12 years have elapsed since the date of
incident, therefore a lenient view be taken as far as sentence of petitioner
Sukhwinder Singh is concerned. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner has already undergone more than 2 months of imprisonment. It
has lastly been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the injury
inflicted on the complainant was with a blunt weapon and therefore,
sentence of the petitioner be reduced to the one already undergone by him,
however, the Court may determine the compensation to be paid to the
complainant.
The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is vehemently
opposed by the counsel for the State. He submits that the petitioner does
not deserve any leniency as he has caused grievous injury on the
complainant.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the
considered opinion that only one blow has been inflicted with a blunt
weapon by the petitioner on the forearm of the complainant Mukand Singh.
As the injury is on the non-vital part of the body and as the petitioner has
suffered the agony of long and protracted trial and as he has been in custody
for 2 months, therefore, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the
petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone by him. Therefore, while
upholding the conviction of the petitioner as ordered by the Addl. Sessions
Judge, Bathinda I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the already
undergone by him. The petitioner shall, however, pay compensation of
Crl.R. No.363 of 2004 -4-
Rs.30,000/- to the complainant Mukand Singh. The compensation be
deposited in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul within a
period of 3 months from today. On receipt of the compensation, the Court
shall inform the complainant Mukand Sngh about his right to receive the
compensation. It is made clear that in case the compensation is not
deposited, the petitioner shall be taken in custody forthwith and shall serve
out the remaining portion of his sentence.
Counsel for the State is also directed to inform the complainant
of his right to receive the compensation.
Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
March 30, 2009 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Gulati JUDGE