Mohan Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

Virender Singh, J.—Mohan Singh son of Nihal Singh, Madan son of Rameshwar and Ved Parkash alias Bedu son of Malhu, the petitioners herein were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Gurgaon u/s 323/325/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rl for six months and a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15.days u/s 325 IPC and to undergo RI for three months each u/s 323 IPC.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, all the three petitioners preferred an appeal and their appeal also met the same fate. Hence this revision petition.

In short the case of prosecution is that Bhagwati wife of Chattar Singh made statement to the police on 21.4.95 at about 9 PM stating therein that she alongwith Jagwati wife of Ramesh, Bhim Singh son Chattar Singh and Dropti wife of Bhim Singh were coming to their house when the present petitioners met on the way in a drunken condition. She got her crop thrashed from the thresher of the above said petitioners. Some alteration took place about money. On this all the petitioners allegedly started abusing her. It is then asserted that Bedu gave a lathi blow on left hand of Bhagwati complainant and gave a fist blow on her right eye. It is then alleged that Mohan Petitioner gave a fist blow to Dropti on her back and breast. Madan gave Danda blow to Bhagwati. The petitioners also inflicted Danda blow to Bhim Singh son of the complainant. On these allegations, the petitioner were booked.

The trial Court on consideration of entire evidence convicted and sentence the petitioners as indicated above. As stated above, the conviction of the above said petitioners stands confirmed by lower appellate Court.

I have heard Mr. C.L. Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajnish Dhanda, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance I have also gone through the entire record.

Mr. Pawar at the very outset has submitted that there are discrepancies in regard to the manner of the incident as well as time of the incident is not given. He then contended that the presence of Bhim Singh the so-called injured from the side of the complainant is also doubtful. Mr. Pawar further contended that in this case section 34 IPC is not a all attracted as the matter flared up all a sudden when the present three petitioners happened to meet the complainant in a drunken condition and demanded the money and thereafter a tiff ensued which resulted into the present occurrence. According to him in this eventually section 34 IPC is not attracted and at the most Bedu who has been attributed the main injury could attract section 325 IPC and can be convicted thereunder.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana argued with vehemence that both the Court below have scanned the evidence minutely and have come to the conclusion that all the three petitioners have caused injuries to Bhagwati, Bhim Singh, Dropti and Jagwati, as such, the applicability of section 34 IPC is writ large. The learned State counsel further contends that the conviction and the sentence as recorded by the Court below be thus, maintained.

After giving my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions of both the sides. 1 am of the view that the arguments advance by Mr. Pawar has no force. Both the Courts below have minutely scanned the entire evidence and have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully able to bring home the guilt to all the petitioners. 1 do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgments of both the Courts. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed on merits.

So far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is stated that the occurrence related to year 1995 and the injury which attracted section 325 IPC is on non-vital part of complainant injured (Smt. Bhagwati). It is also stated that even before the appellate Court the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for benefit of probation of good conduct and made a statement at the Bar that he did not press the appeal on merits on behalf of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be adequately met if instead of sentencing the petitioners to substantive imprisonment, they should be released on probation u/s 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety each in the like amount for a period of six months from the day they furnish bonds before the trial Court. During the period of probation they would be of good behaviour and keep peace. It is ordered accordingly. However, so far as the sentence of fine is concerned, the same would remain intact.

The petitioners would furnish their bail bonds before the trial Court within one month from the date, the certified copy is supplied to them.

With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present revision is dismissed.

Both the Courts below be informed of the result of the present revision petition.