The court upheld the conviction of the accused while reducing the sentence for two petitioners to the period already served, affirming the adequacy of the original sentences.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Both the criminal revision petitions have been preferred before this Court.

2. Revision No. 897/2019 has been preferred by the complainant for awarding lesser/inadequate sentence to the accused respondents 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC by the courts below.

3. Revision No. 845/2019 has been preferred by the accused-petitioners challenging the judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2017 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 15.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 481/2006, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced each of the present accused-petitioners as under:

4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Both the revision petitions are being decided by way of this common judgment as they have arisen out of the same judgments and orders.

6. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.04.2006, complainant Ramgopal gave parcha bayan to the effect that on 16.04.2006 in the morning when he was going towards village Thirajvala, accused-persons came armed with deadly weapons and started beating the complainant. During the scuffle, the complainant received severe injuries. On this parcha bayan, Police registered a case against the accused persons and started investigation.

7. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons including the accused-petitioners before the trial court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges against the accused-persons for offences under Sections 341, 323/149, 324, 365/149, 382,147, 148 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed trial.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and also exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were examined as DW-1 & DW-2.

9. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 15.06.2017 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence as mentioned above.

10. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, both the complainant as well as accused-petitioners preferred two separate appeals before the appellate court and the appellate court vide judgment dated 05.07.2019 dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioners while giving benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act to co-accused persons namely Karamjeet Kaur & Harinder Kaur and also dismissed the appeal of the while enhancing the fine amount. Hence, these revision petitions on behalf of the complainant and accused-petitioners.

11. During the pendency of the revision petition, accused-petitioner No. 2 Tara Singh had expired and revision qua him was dismissed by this Court on 01.02.2021.

Appeal No. 845/2019:

12. In appeal No. 845/2019 preferred by the accused-petitioners, at the threshold counsel submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2006 and accused-petitioners have so far suffered a sentence of about 27 days, out of total sentence of two years' RI. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners No. 1 & 3 for the offence under Sections 341, 323/149, 324/149, 365/149, 382, 147 & 148 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

13. On the other hand, the lea