Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhim And Another vs State Of Haryana on 21 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041358
CRR-3245-2019(O&M) #1# 2024:PHHC:041358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRR-3245-2019(O&M)
Date of Decision:-21.03.2024
Bhim & Anr.
......Petitioners.
Vs.
State of Haryana.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG Haryana.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioners-accused against the judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the judgment of conviction dated
15.07.2016 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2016 passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Safidon has been upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the FIR No.176 dated
27.08.2014 came to be registered on the statement of Jaswant who alleged
that on 24.08.2014 while he along with his son Sukhbir were returning
home from their fields and reached near the house of Bhira son of Suraj Mal
then Bhim (petitioner no.1) gave a lathi blow on his head and he fell down
after which Ishwar (petitioner no.2), his wife and wife of Kala Fouji also
caused injuries to him. The motive behind the assault was that he
(complainant) had demanded back Rs.28,600/- from Bhim which he had
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041358
CRR-3245-2019(O&M) #2# 2024:PHHC:041358
given to him on interest.
3. On conclusion of the investigation the report under Section
173(2) Cr.PC was submitted under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC
against the petitioners. However, Krishana wife of Ishwar (petitioner no.2)
and Munesh wife of Vinod @ Kala were found innocent and were placed in
column no.2. Both the petitioners faced trial and vide judgment dated
15.07.2016/18.07.2016 were convicted and sentenced by the court of
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Safidon as under:-
Sr. Offences under Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
No. Section imprisonment
1. Section 323 IPC RI for 06 Rs.1000/- SI for Two Months
months each each each
2. Section 341 IPC RI for 01 _ _
Month each
3. Section 506 IPC RI for 06
Months each
All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Both the convicted accused preferred an appeal bearing
Criminal Appeal No.102-A of 10.08.2016/06.04.2019 before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, which came to be dismissed vide judgment
deated 28.11.2019.
5. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present revision petition.
6. The Counsel for the petitioners contend that there is an
unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR. The occurrence allegedly
took place at 7.30 on 24.08.2014 but the FIR was got recorded at 6.00 pm
on 27.08.2014. The presence of Sukhbir Singh son of the injured Jaswant
at the spot at the time of the occurrence was doubtful as he did not try to
rescue his father nor did he suffer any injury. The medico legal examination
of injured-Jaswant had taken place after a delay of more than 04 hours
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041358
CRR-3245-2019(O&M) #3# 2024:PHHC:041358
which was suggestive of the fact that Jaswant had suffered injuries on the
hands of unknown assailants. Bhira son of Suraj Mal near whose house the
occurrence had taken place has not been examined as a witness. There were
other material improvements, discrepancies and contradictions in the
statements of the witnesses because of which the judgments of conviction in
the Trial Court and lower Appellate Court were liable to be set aside and the
petitioners ought to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.
7. The Counsel for the State has placed on record custody
certificates dated 20.03.2024 of both the petitioners as per which petitioners
have undergone a total custody period of 03 months and 24 days out of the
awarded sentence of 06 months. He contends that the offences stood
established against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. No fault can
be found with the judgments of the Trial Court and the lower Appellate
Court and, therefore, the present revision petition was liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
9. The star prosecution witness complainant PW-2 Jaswant has
fully reiterated the contents of his complaint Ex.PW-2/A. He has described
in detail the manner in which the occurrence took place and how his medical
examination was conducted. Dr. Bhupinder Singh, M.O.G.H. Jind has been
examined as PW-3 and has categorically stated in his crosss examination
that the injuries suffered by the injured could not be self inflicted. Sukhbir,
was examined as PW-4 and has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
The police officials have also explained as to why there was some delay in
recording the statement of the injured as he had initially been declared unfit.
Merely, because one independent witness namely Bhira son of Suraj Mal
had not been examined does not falsify the prosecution case in its entirety.
10. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041358
CRR-3245-2019(O&M) #4# 2024:PHHC:041358
with the well reasoned judgments of conviction and order of sentence
recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Safidon which have been
upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Resultantly, the revision petition
stands dismissed.
11. As regards the quantum of sentence, it may be pertinent to
mention here that the FIR was registered in August 2014 and more than 09
years have elapsed ever since. The petitioners are first time offenders with
no other case registered against them. Therefore while upholding their
conviction, I deem it appropriate to reduce their sentence to the period
already undergone by them.
12. The revision petition stand disposed of in the above terms.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
March 21, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
