Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2017
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.2192 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 19, 2017
Jarnail Singh and others
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.P.K.Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
The present revision has been filed by the petitioners Jarnail Singh, Hari Om and Beermati against respondent State of Haryana, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2010 and order of sentence dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months under Sections 452, 325 and 506 IPC each and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of `500/- and in default of payment, to 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2017 17:09:20 ::: CRR No.2192 of 2012 -2- undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 323 IPC and also challenging the judgment dated 20.07.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed.
The revision was admitted. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition.
From the record, I find that the challan was presented against petitioner in case FIR No.74 dated 21.05.2002. The brief facts of the case as noted down in the judgment passed by learned JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, are as under:-
"The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.4.02, a telephonic message was received from the police post Ram Pura that Rishi Pal was admitted in the Hospital in an assault case. On the receipt of this information, HC Devinder Singh along C. Krishan Singh, 729 reached there. After obtaining the rukka, statement of the injured Rishi Pal was recorded wherein he stated that he is resident of Damla and is an agriculturist. His sister-in-law Beermati had suffered a decree in her favour from thier mother fraudulently regarding which her mother had filed a case in the civil court at Jagadhri. His sister in law Beermati had given the land to Jarnail Singh and Satpal etc. and the Khasra girdawari is in the name of his mother. On 25.4.02, Jarnail Singh and Satpal etc. were taking out wheat crop from the fields. When he stopped them, they asked him to show the fard. He came back to his house to take fard and showed it to Jarnail Singh and Satpal. His mother Sarbati and Kamlesh also came in the fields with him. At 4.00 p.m., when he showed the fard to Jarnail, Satpal Hari Om and Beermati fell him down and and gave him fists and leg blows. He tried to escape and Jarnail attacked on his left arm with a lathi. Satpal gave a lathi blow on his right leg. Hari Om and Beermati gave him leg blows and fists in his stomach and back. His mother Sarbati and wife came to his rescue, otherwise they would have beaten him more. Thereafter, his mother took him to Civil Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. He further stated that Jarnail had come to his house previous day in the morning with a lathi and was saying that he will kill him. Further, prayer to take appropriate action against the acused was made."
In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.Vinay 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2017 17:09:21 ::: CRR No.2192 of 2012 -3- Chaudhary, PW-2 Dr.B.S.Deswal, PW-3 ASI Devinder Singh, PW-4 Rishi Pal, complainant, PW-5 Kamlesh, PW-6 ASI Satpal and PW-7 Inspector Jai Parkash.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. No witness was examined in defence.
Learned JMIC, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, after appreciating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as stated above. An appeal was filed by the petitioners and the same was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment dated 20.07.2012.
Aggrieved from the above-said judgments, present revision petition has been filed.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding conviction and only contended on the point of reduction of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners Jarnail and Hari Om are poor persons, only bread earner of the family and petitioner Beermati is also poor person and they are suffering from the criminal proceedings since 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners Hari Om and Beer Mati have already undergone 1 months 24 days of actual sentence and petitioner Jarnail Singh has already undergone 1 month and 11 days of actual sentence. It is further contended that petitioners are close relative of the complainant and a compromise has already been effected between them.
Learned counsel for the complainant has also admitted the 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2017 17:09:21 ::: CRR No.2192 of 2012 -4- factum of compromise.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, compromise between the parties and in view of the fact that petitioners are poor persons, only bread earners of the family and facing criminal proceedings since 2002 i.e. for the last about 15 years and also in view of the fact that petitioners Hari Om and Beer Mati have already undergone actual sentence of 1 months 24 days and petitioner Jarnail Singh has already undergone actual sentence of 1 month and 11 days, the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them. However, sentence of fine and in default thereof shall remain the same. As argued, the fine has already been paid.
Therefore, the present revision petition stands partly allowed. Since, the revision petitioners are on bail, their bail/surety bonds stand discharged.
January 19, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2017 17:09:21 :::