The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition maintaining the lower courts' conviction but modified the sentence to one of release after already undergone term. It ordered compensation from petitioners to injured persons.
Sentence modified to release; Rs.10,000 compensation each to be paid to injured persons.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.241 of 2000
Date of decision: March 15, 2010
Gulji Singh and others
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Ms. Kamaljit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the complainant.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 9.2.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioners (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 21.9.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325/34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Sections 324/323/34 IPC on both the counts.
Factual matrix of the case is that on 13.11.1991 at about 12 noon, the accused Gulji Singh, Surinder Singh, Ram Phal and Lali Devi were harvesting the Bajra crop in the field of Rajinder Singh complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant'). The complainant restrained them from doing so. Despite the repeated requests made by the complainant, the accused persons opened attack with lathis and axes. Gulji Singh inflicted lathi blow on the left hand and , Surinder Singh inflicted lathi blow on both the hands and on left leg of the complainant. In the meantime, Umrawali, Pavitra and Krishna tried to rescue him, but Surinder and Lali inflicted lathi blow on the head of Umrawali, accused Rampal inflicted axe blow on the head of Umrawali, Lali inflicted lathi blow on the head of the complainant. He also inflicted axe blow on his right hand as a result of which his first
Criminal Revision No.241 of 2000
-2-
finger was cut. Gulji caused lathi blow on the right shoulder and on both hands of Umrawali. Rampal inflicted three axe blows on the head of Krishna, Surinder inflicted lathi blow on the right hand of the complainant. The injured raised hue and cry which attracted Sukhvir son of Mussai and Ram Singh son of Banwari who came at the spot and rescued the injured persons. The complainant and the other injured were shifted to the General Hospital, Narnaul. On the basis of the said statement Ex.PC, FIR Ex.PW7/B was registered under Sections 323/324/34 IPC, but, later on, on the basis of the x-ray report, offence under Section 325 IPC was also added. After completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court.
The accused persons were charged under Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they being the first offenders and having already undergone about two months and fourteen days out of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency.
Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained.
Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1991 and the accused have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending in the court since then. They have already undergone about two months and fourteen days of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record so that they could be dubbed as habitual offenders. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them.
Criminal Revision No.241 of 2000
-3-
Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them. However, the petitioners are further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to the injured persons within three months from today, which would be equally shared by the injured. Failing to pay the compensation, this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto.
March 15, 2010 deepak
(A.N. Jindal) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leniency can be extended to first offenders who have already undergone part of their sentence after a protracted trial.
Whether compensation to injured persons can be ordered despite the dismissal of the primary revision petition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gulji Singh and others
State of Haryana
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
