Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 28 August, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRR No.1745 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1745 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 28.08.2014.
Joginder and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Loveleen Dhaliwal Singla, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Complainant in person.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners had faced trial in FIR No.110 dated 27.07.2004 under Sections 323, 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal Trial Court, vide judgment/order dated 16.09.2011/17.09.2011, ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioners qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 325/34 IPC. Hence, the present revision petition by the accused-petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted SANDEEP SETHI 2014.09.01 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1745 of 2014 (O&M) -2- that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. Prosecution had failed to prove its case. Learned counsel has further submitted that in case, this Court comes to a conclusion that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
Learned State counsel, who is assisted by the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Injured-respondent No.2 had suffered 17 injuries.
Complainant, who is present in person has also opposed the petition and has submitted that after the registration of the FIR in question, petitioners had falsely involved him in a rape case and he had been acquitted in the said case by the trial court. Complainant has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners was not liable to be reduced.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01.07.2004, complainant Baljeet Singh-respondent No.2 was present in his house. At about 6.00 p.m., Joginder and some unknown persons came and asked him to accompany them. When the complainant started towards the house of Joginder, then Jai Pal and Mahipal came there armed with spades. Joginder caught hold of the complainant from his neck and Jai Pal gave three blows with the handle of the spade on his leg. Mahipal gave four blows with the SANDEEP SETHI 2014.09.01 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1745 of 2014 (O&M) -3- handle of the spade on the right leg and right arm of the complainant. One of the unknown persons gave a danda blow on the hips of the complainant. Complainant fell down. He was dragged by Mahipal and others to their house. Then Kishori Lal accompanied by some unknown persons reached the spot. Kishori Lal was armed with wooden thapi (used for washing clothes), and gave injuries to the complainant with it. One lady also came to the spot and gave kick blows to the complainant. On an alarm raised by the complainant, Bansi and Ranjit reached the spot. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot with their respect weapons.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined the complainant as PW-3. Complainant deposed as per the contents of the FIR. PW-4 Bansi has corroborated the statement of the complainant. PW-1 Dr. Rajender Kumar who had medico legally examined Baljeet Singh proved the medico legal report prepared by him. As per the said report, injured had suffered 17 injuries. As per the said witness, complainant had suffered fracture of his ribs on the left side and scapula. Thus, the ocular version was duly corroborated by medical evidence.
The plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was delay in lodging of the FIR and, therefore, the prosecution case was rendered doubtful is without any force. It is not a case where the delay in lodging the FIR had remained unexplained. In fact, the police had received the information qua the SANDEEP SETHI 2014.09.01 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1745 of 2014 (O&M) -4- occurrence on 01.07.2014. Complainant was declared unfit to make the statement. Statement of the complainant was recorded when he was declared fit on 03.07.2014. Therefore, in the present case, there was no unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of the evidence by the Courts below which would require interference by this Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, both the Courts below had, thus, rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioners qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 325, 323/34 IPC. Keeping in view the number of injuries suffered by the complainant, no ground for reduction of sentence qua imprisonment is made out.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. However, it is ordered that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners under Sections 325, 323/34 IPC shall run concurrently.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 28, 2014.
sandeep sethi SANDEEP SETHI 2014.09.01 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document