Kartar and another vs State of Haryana

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 23rd December, 1992, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahendergarh and the judgment dated 4th July, 1995, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.

The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahendergarh, vide judgment dated 23rd December, 1992, convicted the appellant under Sections 325/34 Indian Penal Code. Under Sections 325/34, both the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ (in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 2 months); under Sections 324/34, IPC, they were sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months); and under Sections 452/34, IPC they were sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ (in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for one month). All the sentences were to run concurrently.

The aforesaid judgment was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide judgment dated 4th July, 1995.

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the present case, the FIR was lodged after 2 days and there is no satisfactory explanation for lodging the FIR late by two days. He further submits that the injured were not even admitted in the hospital and the grievous injury alleged to have been caused by the appellant is on the wrist of the left arm and as such is not on the vital part of the body. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had been facing the trial for the last over 6 years and they have already undergone sentence for a period of two months and 7 days. He further submitted that this is the first offence committed by the petitioners, and keeping in view these facts, a lenient view in the matter should be taken and the petitioners should be released on probation. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hansa v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1991, and a judgment of this Court in Abnash Chander v. State of Punjab, 197882 Supp. Chandigarh Law Reporter 160.

Mr. Dewan, learned AAG Haryana, submits that the delay in lodging the FIR has been fully explained in para 5 of the Judgment, dated 4th July, 1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He further submits that in the same paragraph, it has been stated that the injured were duly examined by the Government doctor. He further submits that the question for release of the petitioners on probation has already been dealt by the first appellate Court and special reasons have been given for not releasing the petitioners on probation. Lastly he contended that the maximum punishment provided for the offence under Section 325 IPC is 7 years and the petitioners have been a awarded sentence of one year''s R.I.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Courts below as the delay in lodging the FIR has been fully explained in para 5 of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 324/452 IPC is upheld.

Now coming to the sentence awarded to the petitioners, I find that the petitioner had been facing the trial for the last 61/2 years and the offence committed by the petitioners is the first one. I further find from the facts that the injury inflicted by the petitioners was on the wrist of the left hand of Parkash and the injuries inflicted on the other two persons were simple one. It is true that the reason given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for not releasing the petitioners on probation do not appear to be special as the only reason given is that the petitioners had not felt repeatent for their act, but I do not think it is a fit case for releasing the petitioners on probation as the injuries inflicted are with a sharpedged weapon.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners under Sections 325/34 and 324/34 IPC is reduced from one year and six months to four months'' R.I. under each section. The view I have taken finds full support from the observations made by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Abdul Rebman Antulay etc. v. R.S. Nayak and another, AIR 1992 SC 1701 : 1992(2) Recent Criminal Reports 634 . Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners is upheld, but the sentence awarded to both the petitioners under Sections 325/34 and 324/34 IPC is reduced to four months'' R.I.

With the modification in the sentence as stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.