Megh Raj and Others vs State of Haryana

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners-convicts against the judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2012 and order of sentence dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa in criminal case No. 162-1 of 2007/2012 arisen out of FIR No. 29 dated 17.02.2007 under Sections 323 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC''), Police Station Ding vide which the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days, for the offence u/s 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners-convicts were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of twenty days, for the offence u/s 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated, on 16.02.2007 at about 8.30 PM, complainant Amar Singh went for a walk towards Bus Stand of village Kotli after taking the meal. He met Tej Bhan, one of the petitioners, who was consuming liquor near liquor vend. They started talking to each other and however, petitioner Tej Bhan started abusing the complainant as he was in drunken condition. He did not say anything to him and returned to his home and narrated the incident to his mother Smt. Rajo Devi. Thereafter, he alongwith his mother went to the house of Tej Bhan for making complaint in this regard. His mother Rajo Devi made complaint to Sheelo Devi, mother of Tej Bhan and on hearing the noise, petitioners-convicts Megh Raj, Kallu Ram and Prem Chand came there. Megh Raj started abusing him and gave a blow of brick-bat to the mother of complainant, which struck on her forehead. By that time, petitioner-convict Tej Bhan also reached there. Petitioner-convict Kallu Ram gave an axe blow on the complainant which hit on his head from behind. Petitioner-convict Prem Chand gave a blow of brick-bat upon the shoulder of complainant and petitioner-convict Tej Bhan gave blows of brick-bat on the waist and left hand of mother of complainant. Several persons gathered there and on seeing them, petitioners returned to their house.

After completion of investigation, report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against the petitioners-convicts. They faced trial. They were convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court as afore-mentioned. Appeal filed by them against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was also dismissed by learned appellate Court.

It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioners-convicts that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioners, however, he submits that the sentence awarded to the petitioners is on higher side. Hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only.

I have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned Courts below. Same are based on evidence. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate Court.

So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-convicts that they are not previous convicts and are poor persons. It is further contended that they are the only bread winner of their respective families. It is also contended that they have been facing the agony of trial for the last about six years. It is further contended that they have already undergone about 4-5 months of the sentence awarded and hence, it is contended that they deserve some leniency in the quantum of sentence.

Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that petitioners-convicts deserve some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Hence, the present revision petition is partly accepted. While affirming the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate Court, the order of sentence is modified to the extent that period of rigorous imprisonment is reduced from one year to six months for the offence u/s 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, maintaining the fine and sentence for the other offence.

However, petitioners-convicts are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 each in the trial Court for being paid to both the injured i.e. Rajo Devi and Amar Singh in equal shares as compensation. It is made clear that if the amount of compensation is not paid, orders passed by the Courts below shall stand restored. Disposed of accordingly.