Ganpat vs State of Haryana

S.K. Jain, J.

Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 19.10.1992, SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahendergarh, convicted Surjit and Ganpat, petitioner, under sections 323/324/34, Indian Penal Code, for having voluntarily caused hurt by dangerous weapon viz., Kulhari, on the person of Suraj Bhan on 30.7.1989, in the area of village Bawana. P.S. Kaina, in furtherance of their common intention. Surjit was ordered to be released on probation whereas Ganpat was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 323 IPC and six months'' R.I. under Section 326 IPC. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. Ganpat preferred an appeal against the abovesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide his judgment dated 24.3.1993. It is that judgment and order of the lower appellate Court against which this criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner and which requires my examination of its sustainability.

The revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 23.4.1993, when the following order was passed :

"Notice re: sentence for 13.7.1993.

Bail to the satisfaction of C.J.M./Duty Magistrate, Narnaul."

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence, gone through the judgments of both the courts below and the evidence on the record.

From the abovesaid order dated 23.4.1993, it is evident that the judgment of conviction has not been challenged on behalf on the convict and the revision petition has been restricted only to the question of quantum of sentence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that on the same very facts the learned trial court had released Surjit, the coaccused of the petitioner, on probation; that he was a youngman of 25 years having three minor children; that he was the sole bread earner of his family; that he was a first offender; and that he also deserved to be released on probation.

I regret my inability to agree with the abovesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Surjit, father and coaccused of the petitioner, was released on probation, keeping in view the following facts :

i) that he was aged 60 years.

ii) that he had eight children.

iii) that he had inflicted injuries with a lathi on nonvital parts of the body of the victim; and that

iv) he was a first offender.

In the case of the petitioner herein, I find that he had inflicted Kulhari blow on the scalp, a vital part of the body of the injured, thereby causing following injury :

A incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bone depth present on scalp 2 cm away from middle line on left temporal region, 5 cm anteriorly from occipital proturbance. Fresh blood present. Advised XRay A.P. lateral of skull to rule out any fracture of bone".

Dr. Ravi Sudhan Sharma PW had opined that injury No. 1 could be caused with the help of an axe. In my opinion, the learned trial Court had already taken a lenient view in awarding the punishment of one month''s R.I. under Section 323 IPC and six months'' R.I. under Section 324 IPC. I do not feel inclined to interfere with this order of sentence. The learned lower appellate Court had rightly confirmed the same.

In the result, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.