Sagar vs State of Haryana

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 22.05.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dismissing the appeal filed by present petitioner-convict against the judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2011 and order of sentence dated 14.10.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal vide which petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'') and sentenced as under:-

However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.

Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 05.04.2005 complainant Vikrant Sharma along with his cousin brother Ankit had gone to the house of their friend Amit Sharma. When they reached near J.C. Model School, petitioner-convict Sagar having a small sword in hand along with two other unknown persons started hurling abuses to Ankit and when he resisted, the two unknown persons caught hold of him and present petitioner-convict Sagar gave sword on the head of Ankit towards right side. He gave second blow which hit his buttock towards left side. He gave third blow with sword again on his buttock. Another blow was given which hit the left hand palm and wrist of Ankit. Petitioner-convict gave another blow below the knee of left leg of Ankit from backside and another blow from the front side and further a blow was given below his right arm. Ankit raised hue and cry whereupon complainant intervened and rescued him.

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

It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-convict at the time of issuing notice of motion that he did not want to press the present revision petition so far as the judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned appellate Court is concerned. However, it is contended that petitioner deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence as the injury for which he was convicted for the offence u/s 326 IPC was on the finger of left hand and other injuries were simple in nature. 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. 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 petitioner-convict that he is only bread winner of his family. It has also been contended that petitioner is having two small children, aged about two and half years and six months, to look after. It is also contended that the injury for which he has been convicted for the offence u/s 326 IPC was on the finger of left hand and other injuries were simple in nature. It is further contended that petitioner has already undergone more than four and half months of sentence.

Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that petitioner-convict deserves 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 imprisonment is reduced to six months for both the offences, maintaining the sentence of fine.

However, petitioner-convict is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000 before learned trial Court as compensation to be paid to injured Ankit on account of injuries received by him in this occurrence. Disposed of accordingly.