Sardare and Others vs State of Haryana

Gurdev Singh, J.—The Petitioners/accused, who were convicted and sentenced by JMIC, Gurgaon, and which conviction and sentence was maintained in the appeal preferred by them, have preferred the present revision against that conviction and sentence. The prosecution version was disclosed by Lalit Kumar (PW-1) in his statement Ex. PA made before Aas Mohammad, Head Constable (PW-7) and it was on the basis of that statement that the FIR was recorded. He narrated therein that simple and grievous hurts were caused to him, Anil and Subhash by the accused in furtherance of their common intention. After the occurrence, he himself and the other injured were medically examined by Dr. P.D. Mehra (PW-2). He found the following injuries on the person of the complainant:

Abrasion was present on upper lip in middle size was one cm bleeding was there, pain was there.

Swelling was present on the forehead on left side, size was 3x3cm, pain and tenderness was there.

Pain and tenderness was present on the chest on front on lateral side. Patient felt pain while respiration. Advised x-ray of chest.

Pain and tenderness was present on the back on left side. Patient felt pain while respiration. Advised x-ray.

The following two injuries were found on the person of Anil Kumar:

LW was present on the scalp on parietal area on right side. Size was 4x1x1 cm, margins were irregular. Bleeding was there. Pain was there.

Swelling was present on right side on the mastoid process. Size was 4x3 cm. Pain and tenderness was there.

On medico legal examination of Subhash, the following three injuries were found on his person:

Incised wound present on left side on the parietal area 4 cm away from midline of the body. Size was 3x1x1 cm. Margins were regular. Bleeding was there, alongwith pain and tenderness. Injury was advised x-ray.

Incised wound present on left side on the occipital area, having size of 2.5x0.5x1cm. Margins were regular. Bleeding alongwith pain and tenderness was there. Injury was advised x-ray.

Though the statement of the complainant is silent about causing of any injury by him or by the other injured to the accused, yet when he made the statement in the court as PW-1, he stated that he had given a blow with the help of bucket on the head Subhash in exercise of right of private defence. The accused were also examined by the same doctor and he found following injuries on the person of Jai Bhagwan.

Complaint of pain on the back of left ear.

Complaint of pain in the tooth of lower jaw.

Complaint of pain in the back of left shoulder.

According to this doctor, he also examined Palturam and found the following injuries on his person:

An abrasion was present on right hand on dorsal aspect. 2 cm in line with the fourth finger. Bleeding and pain was there.

Bruise with swelling present on right forearm, showing impression of tooth bite. Size of bruise was 2.5x2.5 cm, redness was there. Size of swelling was 2.5 x 3 cm. It was present on ventral aspect. Pain and tenderness was there.

When the accused were examined and their statements were recorded u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, they came out with the plea that they caused injuries to Lalit, Subhash and Anil in exercise of right of private defence. After their conviction was recorded by the JMIC, they were sentenced as under:

1

Sardare

(i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 323/34 IPC; (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 324/34 IPC; (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 325/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-; and (iv) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 326/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2

Jai Bhagwan

(i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 323/34 IPC; (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 324/34 IPC; (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 325/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-; and (iv) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 326/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

3

Subhash

(i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 323/34 IPC; (ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 324/34 IPC; (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 325/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-; and (iv) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 326/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

4

Paltu

(i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 323/34 IPC;

(ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 324/34 IPC;

(iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 325/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-; and

(iv) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 326/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

5

Ram Narain

(i) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 323/34 IPC;

(ii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 324/34 IPC;

(iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 325/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-; and

(iv) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 326/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

In the appeal, while maintaining the conviction, the appellate court released Ram Narain-accused on probation and sentence of the other accused was maintained.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/accused faced with the situation that the accused themselves admitted causing of the injuries to the complainant party in their statements u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, confined his arguments on the quantum of sentence. He submitted that the accused are standing their trial since long and the sentence of imprisonment of three years imposed them u/s 326 IPC is on the higher side and be reduced.

It is a case where injuries were caused to each other by both the sides and the accused took up the plea of right of private defence. However, the plea of the accused was not upheld by the trial court and the appellate court.

Keeping in view the nature of the injury, which falls u/s 326 IPC, this Court is not inclined to make any order for reduction of sentence of imprisonment so imposed upon the accused. That injury was found on the parietal area of Subhash and size was 3x1x1 cm. The same was subjected to x-ray examination. Application Ex. PW2/K was made by the police for inquiring about the opinion of Dr. P.D. Mehra, regarding that injury. That doctor opined, vide his report Ex. PW2/L, that possibility of the injuries on the person of Subhash being dangerous at that stage cannot be rule out. The seriousness of the person with such injury is reflected in this opinion of the doctor.

This revision is dismissed accordingly.

Accused be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Records of the trial court be returned forthwith.