Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan @ Balli vs State Of Haryana on 17 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053812
CRR 1050 - 2011 2023:PHHC:053812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.1050 of 2011
Date of Decision: April 17, 2023
Krishan @ Balli ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This revision is directed against the concurrent finding of
conviction.
2. Petitioner faced trial in a case arising out of FIR No.231
dated 30.11.2001 registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal
under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC, on the allegations that on
28.11.2001, he caused injuries with a drant on various parts of the body of
his co-villager Prem. After trial, he was convicted under Sections 323,
324 and 326 IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal vide
judgment dated 09.02.2010 and vide a separate order dated 10.02.2010,
was sentenced as under: -
Offence Sentence Fine Default Sentence
323 IPC RI for 06 months
324 IPC RI for 01 year
326 IPC RI for 03 years ₹250/- RI for 15 days
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, on 26.04.2011.
Page N: 1 of 4 Pages
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053812
CRR 1050 - 2011 2023:PHHC:053812
4. Although the revision has been filed challenging the
conviction as well as order of sentence but before this Court, learned
counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only regarding the
quantum of sentence, submitting that the petitioner does not press the
revision against conviction. It is argued by learned counsel that
occurrence took place way back in November, 2001 and that we are now
in the year 2023 and, thus a period of more than 21 years has lapsed.
Petitioner as well as injured are co-villagers. Petitioner has earlier
remained in custody for a period of more than four months and that the
petitioner was released on bail by this Court in 2011 and that sending him
behind bars after such a long time is likely to vitiate the atmosphere in the
village. Learned counsel has prayed to reduce the sentence for the period
already undergone by the petitioner.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the plea to reduce the
sentence for the period already undergone by the petitioner by pointing
out that as many as 11 injuries were caused on the person of complainant
- Prem out of which 10 injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. It
is submitted that though petitioner faced agony of trial for a long time but
the complainant also waited for justice and so, there is no justification to
reduce the sentence.
6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and perused
the record.
7. Record reveals that though as many as 11 injuries were found
on the person of injured - complainant Prem, out of which 10 were by
sharp edged weapon but on X-ray examination, the grievous injury was
found only on the right wrist i.e., non-vital part of the body. Rest of the
injuries were found to be simple.
Page N: 2 of 4 Pages
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053812
CRR 1050 - 2011 2023:PHHC:053812
8. In George Pon Paul Vs. Kanagalet and others, 2009(3)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 146, accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC
and was sentenced till rising of the Court. Trial in the case had
commenced in the year 1993. In these circumstances, it was held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court that due to long passage of time, it would be
appropriate to restrict the period of sentence to the period already
undergone.
9. In Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2005(1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 477, conviction was recorded under Section 326 IPC. Incident
was 17 years old. Sentence was reduced to already undergone (one
month) though accused was directed to pay compensation of ₹10,000/- to
the complainant, by this High Court. This High Court had relied upon
Tarak Nath Singh and another Vs. State of West Bengal, 1998(1)
Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 587, wherein the occurrence had taken
place 18 years prior to decision of the appeal. Parties were relatives and
so, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
10. In similar facts and circumstances, same view has been taken
by this High Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmail Singh, 2002(2) RCR
(Criminal) 600, Bahali Ram and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2008(4)
AICLR 602, Suresh Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2006(2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 624, Jaibir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2007(3)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 504, Swinder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab,
2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 581, in all of which, conviction was recorded
under Section 326 IPC but due to long lapse of time from the date of
incident and the date of decision of the appeal, the sentence was reduced
to the already undergone.
11. Having regard to all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
Page N: 3 of 4 Pages
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053812
CRR 1050 - 2011 2023:PHHC:053812
the case and considering the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as
well as this High Court in various cases (cited supra), I consider it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the already
undergone by him. However, petitioner is directed to pay compensation
of ₹20,000/- to the complainant Prem. Requisite amount is directed to be
deposited in the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, failing which this revision petition shall be
deemed to have been dismissed. On deposit of the said compensation
amount, trial Court is directed to disburse the same to the complainant
Prem forthwith.
Disposed of accordingly.
April 17, 2023 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page N: 4 of 4 Pages Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053812
4 of 4
