Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. This judgment shall dispose off two criminal revisions i.e CRR-1880-2007 titled as "Jagdev Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana" and CRR-1909-2007 titled as "Baldev Singh. Vs. State of Haryana", as both the petitions arising out of common impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.09.2007, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa and the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2002 and order of sentence dated 14.02.2002, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, whereby the petitioners were ordered to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323,324,326 r/w 34 of IPC.

1 of 8

2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 18.05.1996, a wireless message was received from police Station City Sirsa regarding the admission of Tika Singh in the hospital. Zile Singh S.I rushed to record the statement of the Injured and after obtaining the opinion of the doctor he recorded his statement, He stated that he is resident of Rori and is an Agriculturist by profession. On 17.05.1996 his brother Nihal Singh had gone to District Court, Sirsa to get Chanan Singh released on bail and when at about 5:00 p.m. he reached at bus stand Rori and was proceeding towards his house and when reached near New Grain market, Baldev Singh and Sindhoora singh had caused injuries to him. At about 9:30 p.m., when he was going to the house of Nihal Singh he found that Hazoora Singh and Makhan Singh were armed with Gandassas. On seeing him they started abusing him in filthy language. Makhan Singh gave a gandassa blow on his right elbow. Hazoora Singh also gave a gandassa blow on his right elbow. Jagdev Singh gave him a gandassa blow on his head. Hazoora Singh gave a gandassa blow on his right hand which hit him on his two fingers. Angrej Singh who is no more gave a gandasa blow on the left hand. Makhan Singh gave a gandassa blow on his right thigh. He fell down and then Jagdev Singh gave him a gandassa blow on his waist. He raised alarm which attracted Babu Singh and his son Himmat Singh at the spot. They also witnessed the aforesaid occurrence. When they were rescuing him, accused Hazoora Singh and Gurmail Singh also caused injuries to them. After this the complainant became unconscious. His father Preet Singh arranged a jeep and got him admitted in the General Hospital. The motive behind of this fight was that his brother Nihal Singh had gone to get released Chanan Singh on bail in 2 of 8 the District Court, Sirsa. On his this report the present case was registered in the police station.I.O rushed to the spot and prepared rough site plan. He also collected the MLR and x-ray report and also recovered the weapon of offence from the possession of the accused and prepared the rough site plan regarding recoveries of weapon of offence and also recorded the statement of the Pws under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completing the necessary investigation applicants were challaned.

CRR-1880-2007

11. Now, adverting to the order of quantum of sentence, it is apparent from the record that Jagdev Singh petitioner No.1 has already undergone 07 months of actual custody, whereas, Makhan Singh petitioner No.2 has undergone more than 06 months of actual custody, whereas, Hazoora Singh, petitioner No.3 has undergone more than 06 months of actual custody. This 6 of 8 Court is also conscious of the fact that all the three petitioners are facing prosecution since 18.05.1996 i.e. for the last 29 years. Still further, the sentence imposed on the petitioners was suspended by this Court on 04.10.2007, however, they had not misused the concession of bail in any manner. Moreover, Jagdev Singh petitioner No.1 was aged about 40 years, Makhan Singh petitioner No.2 aged about 42 years and Hazoora Singh, petitioner No.3 aged about 75 years at the time of their conviction. Now, this revision is pending for the last more than 18 years and apparently, all the petitioners have turned senior citizens. Thus, no purpose will be served by sending them behind the bars and the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence imposed on the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them in the present case. However, amount of fine imposed on them shall remain the same.