Judgment:
CRR-1655-2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1655-2013 Date of decision:
23. 9.2013 Dilbagh Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. PRESENT: Ms. Satwant Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab. Mr. R.D. Anand, Advocate for the complainant. R.P. NAGRATH, J.
The instant revision has been filed against concurrent findings of conviction recorded against the petitioner by the Courts below for offences under Sections 452/326/324/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), awarding sentences to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ` 2000/- each under Sections 452 and 326 IPC (in default to Kataria Rishu 2013.10.03 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1655-2013 -2- undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month); rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- under Section 324 IPC in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 506 IPC. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with the modification that substantive sentences on each count shall run concurrently.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that for quite sometime the petitioner used to collect wages from the firm of complainant for disbursal to the labourers. The petitioner started demanding hike in wages to which the complainant and his brother did not agree. The petitioner who was in inebriated condition inflicted knife blows to the complainant and caused injuries as described below:- 1) An incised wound 5 x 5 Cm on left side of face and nose, 3 cm below left eye. The wound was muscle deep:
2. An incised wound 5.5 x 1 cm on back and lateral side of left forearm, middle portion. Wound was bone deep, fresh bleeding present. X-ray advised. 3) An incised wound 3.5 x .5 cm slightly/oblique on the middle side of left hand. On the meta-corpophalyingly joint of little finger. Wound was bone deep fresh bleeding. X-ray advised. 4) An incised and penetrating wound 2.5 x 5 cm on front Kataria Rishu 2013.10.03 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1655-2013 -3- of upper portion left side of abdomen. Fresh bleeding. 5) Incised wound 2 x 2.5 cm oblique on the left parietal region. Wound was muscle deep. Fresh bleeding inside.”
. Injuries No.2 and 4 were declared grievous in nature. All the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon as per opinion of the doctor.
3. The conviction recorded by the trial Court was not challenged before Appellate Court, on the ground that petitioner entered into a compromise with the complainant/injured. The original compromise was placed on record of the appeal by learned counsel for the complainant.
4. Faced with the above situation, the findings of conviction were not assailed by learned petitioner's counsel. Notice of motion in the instant revision was thus issued qua quantum of sentence only.
5. As per custody certificate dated 20.7.2013, the petitioner has by now undergone more than 9½ months of imprisonment out of which post-conviction period is more than 5 months of imprisonment. Even before this Court, the counsel appearing for the complainant has not opposed the prayer for reduction in sentence on the ground of amicable compromise having been reached between the parties. The circumstances of the instant case, do suggest that business concern/firm of complainant had engaged the petitioner for disbursement of wages to the labourers.
6. In the circumstances of the case, the instant petition is partly allowed, only qua quantum of sentence upholding the conviction Kataria Rishu 2013.10.03 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1655-2013 -4- recorded by the Courts below. The sentence for various offences under which the petitioner was convicted is reduced to the period already undergone in respect of all the charges. The imposition of fine by the trial Court is also maintained. September 23, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE Kataria Rishu 2013.10.03 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document