Ramesh Chand vs State of Haryana

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

It is alleged by the prosecution that Subhash son of Risal Singh had his residential house in Ward No. 11, Gohana. The house of Ramesh Chand and Jagdish was also situated near his house. About three months before the present occurrence, they had some alteration and exchange of abuses on the dispute amongst their children but their brotherhood had got that matter compromised. Ramesh had nourished a grudge and made many futile attempts to cause him injury.

It is further the case of the prosecution that on 12.11.1985 at about 11.30 a.m. Jagdish appellant caught hold of Subhash Complainant and Ramesh inflicted Chhuri blow in his back. On Parkash and Zile Singh intervened and separated them. Then Risal Singh, father of the complainant reached and on seeing him, Ramesh and Jagdish ran away. A case was got registered against the appellants and the investigation was conducted.

After the conclusion of trial, Ramesh appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code while Jagdish under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal.

From the consistent and trustworthy evidence of Subhash and Om Parkash, it has been proved that the occurrence did take place at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution. The ocular testimony of these witnesses finds full support from the medical evidence. Dr. S.S. Malik, P.W. 1 who medico legally examined Subhash injured found the following injury on his person :

"Incised wound with well defined margins 3.5 cm x 1 cm on the left side of back situated 4 cm from mid line and 13 cm from the lower angle of left scapule. Clotted blood was present in the wound. Probing of the wound was not done. There was corresponding cut in the shirt."

In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant could not successfully assail the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial Court. Therefore the conviction of the appellants is confirmed.

So far as the sentence part of the judgment is concerned, it may be observed that the appellants were convicted on November 30, 1987 and they filed this appeal in this Court in December, 1987. The same remained pending in this Court for more than 111/2 years. During this period, they must have suffered physically, mentally and economically. They must have languished in the jail for some time. There is nothing on the record to indicate that since the time of the said incident, there is any further escalation in the dispute that took place between the parties. Otherwise also, it would not be appropriate after so many years to direct them to undergo sentence. Accordingly, it is directed that the sentence imposed upon the appellants be reduced to the one already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine and in default thereof shall remain intact.

With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of.

The appellants shall stand discharged from their bail bonds and surety bonds.

JUDGMENT accordinly.