Banwari Lal vs State of Haryana and others

Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two petitions, would

be disposed of as the petitioner-Banwari Lal has challenged the judgment

and order dated 15.9.2014/16.9.2014 passed by the trial Court whereby all

the four accused were convicted and sentenced and the judgment dated

26.4.2016 passed by the appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the

petitioner for enchancement of sentence, was dismissed.

The trial Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 15.9.2014

held the respondents-accused- Lal Chand, Satish Kumar, Balram, Dhanwati

guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 of the

Indian Penal Code (` IPC '' for short) and the other two accused, namely,

Sangeeta and Sonu were acquitted and vide order of sentence dated

16.9.2014, the aforesaid four accused were sentenced to pay fine of `1000/-

each for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and fine

of `2000/- each for commission of offence punishable under Section 506

IPC and in default of payment of fine, accused were liable to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for commission of

offence punishable under Section 323 / 34 IPC.

Petitioner-Banwari Lal filed two petitions before the appellate

Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No.143 challenging the judgment of acquittal of

accused-Sangeeta and Sonu and Criminal Revision No. 100 praying for

enhancement of sentence of all the accused persons. The appellate Court,

vide its judgment dated 26.4.2016, dismissed the appeal as well as the

revision. Thereafter, petitioner has filed present CRM-M-34564-2017

challenging the order passed by the appellate Court in Crl Appeal No. 143

and has also filed CRR No.3072 of 2016 challenging the dismissal of

Criminal Revision No.143.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Courts

below, while acquitting accused- Sonu and Sangeeta has not appreciated

that the commission of offence under Sections 147, 148 and 149 are made

out as from deposition of PW1/PW2 and their presence and active

participation is proved. It is also submitted that PW1 Banwari Lal as well

as PW2 Smt Krishna have attributed specific role to accused Lal Chand,

Satish Balram and Dhanwanti. The oral version of the complainant was

corroborated with the medical evidence i.e. MLR of injured-

Deepak,Banwari Lal and Smt.Krishna Exhibits PW3/A2, PW3/A3 and

PW3/A4 which were proved by Doctor Sunita Rathi. It is, thus, submitted

that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against all the

accused persons including Sonu and Sangeeta and, therefore, their acquittal

is not justified in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the sentence

awarded to the accused Lal Chand, Satish, Balram and Dhanwati is on

lower side as the prosecution has proved that they are guilty of commission

of offence under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel has further

argued that even the appellate Court has also not considered the oral as

well as the medical evidence on record.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the State.

So far the submissions of the petitioner against Sonu and

Sangeeta is concerned, the same is devoid of any merit as it has come in the

statement of PW1 Banwari Lal, which was made to the Police that he did

not mention the name of Sonu and Sangeeta as he could not identify them as

they carrying a veil. Further as per the deposition of PW1/PW2, no specific

injuries have been attributed to these ladies- Sonu and Sangeeta

and,therefore, the Courts below have rightly acquitted them of the charges

as neither their identity was proved in the Court nor any attribution causing

injury to the complainant party is proved on record.

The next submission that the sentence awarded to the other

accused, namely Lal Chand, Balram, Satish and Dhanwanti is on lower side

as the trial Court has not imposed fine on them and has not awarded any

sentence is also without merit.

Since these four accused were convicted for offence under

Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries to the complainant party, trial

Court ordered payment of fine vide its judgment dated 16.9.2014. It is not

disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the

judgment/order of conviction by the trial Court, approximately, a period of

three years has already lapsed and these persons have not repeated any such

incident or caused any threat to the petitioner. The appellate Court has also

appreciated the entire prosecution evidence and has recorded a finding of

fact that since these persons are first offenders and have faced trial for six

years,therefore, in cases, where there is a minimum (or not minimum) and

maximum punishment is provided under the Act, the discretion of awarding

the sentence lies with the Court though the same is to be exercised judicially

and not arbitrarily after due consideration of facts and circumstances of each

case.

Since the Courts below held that the accused persons have

already faced long trial and have not repeated the offence after passing of

the judgment of the trial Court, the sentence awarded to the accused is

legally justified.

Since both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent

finding that the petitioner-complainant has failed to prove his case, in view

of the judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri

v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, holding that where, in a

case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be

adopted by the Court, the impugned judgments do not call for interference.

Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.