Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hoi Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana on 27 September, 2011
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 2024 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 27, 2011
Hoi Ram and others
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J
Custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record.
This petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.8.2011 passed by the learned Session Judge, Sonipat, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.5.2009 and dated 1.6.2009 respectively passed by the trial court.
In brief, the allegations are that on 15.9.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. all the accused entered the house of the complainant Davender and inflicted him injuries with their respective weapons. Charan Singh inflicted daav blow on his head, right arm, shoulder and left side of abdomen; Jagbir Singh inflicted sickle blow on his left shoulder, left arm, left side of the chest and right toe. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and the case was investigated. On completion of the investigation charge report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court.
The accused persons were charged under Sections 323/324/452 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Crl. Revision No. 2024 of 2011 (O&M) -2-
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. B.S. Kadiyan (PW1), Dr. I.S. Punia (PW2) and Davender complainant (PW3).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, no evidence was led in defence.
The trial resulted into conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed.
Without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been urged that some leniency on the quantum of sentence be extended.
Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the accused entered the house of the complainant and inflicted injuries to him. The ocular version fits in with the medical evidence. The witnesses are quite consistent in their statements regarding, time place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage.
As regards quantum of sentence it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2002; the petitioners have already suffered agony of protracted proceedings pending against them since then; they have already undergone more than one month of the substantive sentence; they are the first offenders and undertake to compensate the injured as such, it would be in the fitness of things if some Crl. Revision No. 2024 of 2011 (O&M) -3- leniency is extended to them.
Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve remaining part of the sentence as and when called for. The sentence of fine is converted into costs of litigation. However, they are further burdened to pay a sum of `8000/- each as compensation to the injured, within two months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat for compliance.
September 27, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge