Punjab-Haryana High Court
Biyas Dev And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062232
CRR-3645-2017(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRR-3645-2017(O&M)
Date of Decision:-06.05.2024
Biyas Dev & Anr.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioners-accused against the judgment dated 20.09.2017 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali whereby the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence both dated 07.09.2016 passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali has been upheld and in addition
conviction has been recorded under Section 324 IPC as well.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Karan Kapoor
got registered the FIR in question stating that he had got married to Veenu in
November 2007. After sometime she had started to reside with her parents
as they could not get along well. A court case was filed in that regard. On
26.06.2009 at about 9.20 pm while he was going towards his house, his
brother in law Amandeep (petitioner no.2) and his father-in-law Biyas Dev
(petitioner no.1) took 02 rounds around him on their scooter. They stopped
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062232
CRR-3645-2017(O&M) #2#
their scooter along with 3/ 4 other motor cycles in front of his car.
Amandeep got down from his scooter, pulled him (complainant) out from
his car and his father-in-law attacked him with a small kirpan on the right
side of his stomach and he fell down. His brother-in-law Amandeep
attacked him with a small kirpan on his back. The other persons gave fist
blows and raised lalkaras for filing a court case. On raising a hue and cry
the accused fled away from the spot.
3. After the registration of the FIR the report under Section 173(2)
Cr.PC was submitted and on conclusion of the Trial the petitioners came to
be convicted and sentenced by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
SAS Nagar, Mohali as under:-
Sr. Offences under Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
No. Section imprisonment
1. Section 326 IPC RI for 03 years Rs.1000/- RI for 10 days each
each each
2. Section 341 IPC RI for 01 _ _
Month each
Both the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. The petitioners preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal
No.46 of 26.09.2016 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SAS
Nagar, Mohali. The Court while upholding their conviction also convicted
them for having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. However,
their substantive sentence was reduced as under:-
Appellant/Convict-Biyas Dev
Sr. Offences under Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
No. Section imprisonment
1. Section 326 IPC RI for 02 years Rs.1000/- RI for 10 days
each
2. Section 324/34 RI for 06 _ _
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062232
CRR-3645-2017(O&M) #3#
IPC Month
3. Section 341 IPC SI for 01 _ _
Month
Appellant/Convict-Amandeep
Sr. Offences under Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
No. Section imprisonment
1. Section 324 IPC RI for 01 year - -
2. Section 326/34 RI for 01 Year Rs.1000/- RI for 10 Days
IPC
3. Section 341 IPC SI for 01 _ _
Month
All the aforesaid sentences of both the petitioners were ordered
to run concurrently.
5. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the
present revision petition.
6. The Counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners had
been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the complainant was
married to the daughter of the petitioner no.1 and had implicated the
petitioners so that they do not pursue their case against the complainant.
The FIR had been registered after a delay of 08 days. This delay was fatal to
the prosecution case. The medical evidence was contrary to the ocular
account. The alleged weapon of offence was never sent for forensic
analysis. No independent witness was examined to substantiate the
prosecution version. He therefore, contends that 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 02.05.2024 of both the petitioners as per which petitioner-
Biyas Dev has undergone custody of 05 months out of his awarded sentence
of 02 years whereas petitioner-Amandeep has undergone custody of 05
months out of his awarded sentence of 01 year. He contends that no fault
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062232
CRR-3645-2017(O&M) #4#
could be found with the well reasoned judgments of the Trial Court and the
lower Appellate Court. Once the lower Appellate Court came to the
conclusion that the offence under Section 324 IPC was also made out on the
basis of the evidence recorded, the petitioners could not be aggrieved in any
manner. Even otherwise, they had already been convicted for the higher
offence i.e. Section 326 IPC. He therefore contends that the present petition
was liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the
record.
9. A perusal of the record would reveal that the instant occurrence
took place on account of the estranged relations between the complainant on
the one hand and the petitioners on the other. Therefore, the motive is
established beyond reasonable doubt. The delay of 08 days in the
registration of the FIR stands explained. In fact, the complainant had been
declared unfit to get recorded his statement because of which the statement
leading to the registration of the FIR was recorded later. The medical
evidence is totally in consonance with ocular account. As the complainant
himself was an injured witness the requirement of corroboration by an
independent witness is not required.
10. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere
with the well reasoned judgments of conviction and order of sentence
recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali which
have been upheld by Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062232
CRR-3645-2017(O&M) #5#
11. As regards the imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out
that the occurrence pertains to the year 2009. The petitioner-Biyas Dev had
undergone custody of 05 months out of his awarded sentence of 02 years
whereas petitioner-Amandeep had undergone custody of 05 months out of
his awarded sentence of 01 year. They are first time offenders with no other
cases registered against them. Therefore, while upholding their conviction, I
deem it appropriate to reduce their substantive sentence to the period already
undergone by them i.e. 05 months each. However, the sentence of fine and
sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact.
12. The revision petition stand disposed of in the above terms.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
May 06, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
