Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhanna Singh @ Dhanraj And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 November, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRR No. 2974 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRR No. 2974 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.11.2012
Dhanna Singh @ Dhanraj and others
......petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.K.D.S. Sandhu, Addl.A.G, Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners were tried for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) in FIR No.73 dated 28.6.2004 registered at Police Station Ding. The trial Court, vide judgment/ order dated 6.8.2010 convicted and sentenced the petitioners qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325/34 IPC. Appeals filed by the petitioners against the said judgment/ order of conviction and sentence were dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.9.2012. Hence, the present revision petition.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Ami Chand, his son Satish Kumar and Satbir Singh were attacked by the petitioners and their co-accused Ishwar on 27.6.2004. Ami Chand, Satish Kumar and Satbir Singh suffered injuries in the occurrence at the hands of the petitioners and their co-accused.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the CRR No. 2974 of 2012 (O&M) 2 petitioners has not challenged the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 323, 324, 325/34 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to already undergone by them. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners and the complainant belonged to one family. Petitioners are very poor persons. Petitioner No.1 Dhanna Singh is aged more than 70 years. Petitioner No.2 Lekh Raj is working as a tea vendor and petitioner No.3 Inderpal Singh is working as an agriculturist. Petitioners are the only bread earners of the their families. Petitioners are not previous convicts.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners to already undergone by them. A perusal of the custody certificates placed on record of the petitioners reveals that they are not involved in any other criminal case. Fine is stated to have been deposited by the petitioners.
Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners for commission offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325/34 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to already undergone by them. Petitioners, who are in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other criminal case.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE November 16, 2012 anita