Partly allowed

Rambir and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2009CRR/1051/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of criminal revision petitions challenging conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 323/325/34 IPC. The court granted probation to three petitioners and modified the sentence for a fourth petitioner by enhancing the fine, which would be payable to the victim as compensation, while reducing the term of imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted release on probation; sentence for Dharambir reduced to three months with fine enhanced to Rs.15,000 payable to victim.

Rambir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Cr. Rev. 1051 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Cr. Rev. 1051 of 2009

¶5

DATE OF DECISION 14.5.2009

Rambir and others

......PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Haryana

......RESPONDENTS

PRESENT: Mr. CL Verma and R.M.Singh Advocates Mr. PM Anand, Addl.A.G.Hry

¶12

M.M.S.BEDI,J.

¶13

The revision petitions have been taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

This order will dispose of two criminal revision petitions filed by Rambir and others (Crl.Rev. 1051 of 2009) and Dharambir (Crl.Rev. 814 of 2009). These revision petitions have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court dated 7/9.11.2006 and the lower appellate court, Fardiabad vide decision dated 16.3.2009. The petitioners had been tried for offences u/s 323/325 read with Section 34 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-u/s 323/34 IPC and two years u/s 325/34 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each i.e. Rs.5000/- (Rs.1000/- each) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under each section.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that Paras Ram along with his brother Inderpal had purchased some land from Nathi Ram and had given earnest money. The uncle of the complainant had sown Dhanincha crop.

¶16

Cr. Rev. 1051 of 2009

¶17

¶18

While the ladies of Shyambir's family were picking Dhanincha crop and the complainant objected to the same, Shyambir armed with a pharsa gave a blow on his head. Rambir gave a ballam blow on his left leg. Dharambir had given a lathi blow on his left elbow. When the complainant raised a noise, his father Budh Singh reached at the spot. Sia Ram and Fateh Kaur caused injuries to the father of the complainant. The witnesses Ajit Singh and Bir Singh had also reached at the spot to rescue the complainant and his father. Believing the testimony of the witnesses, the conviction order had been passed against the petitioners.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners have not challenged the conviction but have only requested that in view of the cordial relations between the complainant and the petitioners and in view of they being neighbours, the sentence of imprisonment be reduced.

¶20

I have taken into consideration the circumstances of the present case. So far as Sia Ram, Shyambir and Rambir are concerned, they can be released on probation as their co-accused Fateh Kaur had been granted the said relief. They are the first offenders and had been facing trial since 1998. The grievous injury has not even been attributed to them. Sia Ram, Shyambir and Rambir are granted the concession of probation and it is ordered that they will be released on probation on their furnishing bonds for a sum of Rs.30,000/- each for maintaining peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so.

¶21

So far as Dharambir is concerned, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.500/- for having caused grievous injury on the elbow of Paras Ram. The complainant and Dharambir are residing in the same village. It is apparent from the statement of Paras Ram (PW 3) that the parties have

¶22

Cr. Rev. 1051 of 2009

¶23

¶24

suffered litigation for more than 17 years and they were on visiting terms and there is no ill will between them.

¶25

In view of the said circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment u/s 325 IPC from a period of two years to three months. Ordered accordingly. However, the fine is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to 15,000/- . In case of recovery of fine, the same would be payable to complainant Paras Ram as compensation for the injuries received by him at the hands of the petitioner . Sentence of imprisonment for six months u/s 323/34 IPC is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by petitioner Dharambir. However, sentence of fine will remain unaltered u/s 323/34 IPC. Fine imposed by the trial court has already been deposited by the petitioners. It is ordered that in case of default of depositing of difference of fine imposed by this court, the sentence u/s 325/34 IPC, awarded by the lower appellate court will be deemed to have been restored, as agreed by the counsel for the petitioner. All the sentences will run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone will be set off against the sentence awarded.

¶26

With the above modification in the quantum of sentence, the revision petitions stand disposed of.

¶27

May 14 ,2009 TSM

¶28

( M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE

Rambir and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambir and Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmej Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Gurmukh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mintoo Singh Vs State of Punjab

V a Joseph and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ranjeet Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ved Parkash Vs State of Haryana