IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that sentencing must balance the severity of the crime with the individual circumstances of the offenders, particularly in cases involving health issues.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. Since both these revisions are arise from one and the same judgment, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are placed in Criminal Revision No. 232 of 2024.

3. The challenge in Criminal Revision No. 232 of 2024 is made to the following:

(i) Judgment and order dated 12.03.2020, passed in Criminal Case No. 423 of 2020, State vs. Amit Sharma and Others, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar (for short “the case”), by which, the revisionists have been convicted under Section 323, 325 IPC and sentenced as follows:

(a) Under Section 323 IPC - to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional simple imprisonment for a period of seven days.

(b) Under Section 325 IPC - to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 16.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2021, Amit Sharma and others vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar (“the appeal”). By it, the conviction has been upheld, but the sentence has been reduced to three months simple imprisonment.

4. The challenge in Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2024 is made to the judgment and order dated 16.02.2024, passed in the appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows: the revisionist no. 3, Satya Prakash Sharma runs a shop in the name and style of Namaskar Electronics. It appears that PW1 Pankaj Ahluwalia had purchased certain articles relating to Cooler. According to the FIR, on 02.06.2012, at 11:00 AM, PW1 Pankaj Ahluwalia visited the shop run by the revisionist no. 3, Satya Prakash Sharma to change the blades of the Cooler and requested the revisionist no. 3, Satya Prakash Sharma to change the blades. FIR records that instead of changing the blades, the revisionist no. 3, Satya Prakash Sharma shoved the PW1 Pankaj Ahluwalia. Thereafter, abused and threatened him. In this sequel, the FIR records that all the revisionists having Saria and iron rod with them attacked the PW1 Pankaj Ahluwalia. Ishwar Chand Verma, Shobhit Verma, Anil and other persons, who gathered at the spot and tried to save the injured PW1 Pankaj Ahluwalia. PW1 Pankaj Ahluwalia got injuries on his hand. PW2 Shobhit Verma also sustained the injuries on his head and some other persons also sustained injuries. This report was given by PW1 Pankaj Ahluwalia. Based on it, FIR No. 177 of 2012, under Sections 323, 506, 356, 504 IPC was lodged at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar. Investigation was carried out; all the injured were medically examined.

7. In fact, PW2 Shobhit Verma had hairline fracture on his skull. The other injured also sustained injuries. The Investigating Officer collected injury reports, supplementary reports, X-Ray plates, etc. He prepared the site plan and after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionists, which is basis of the case. On 11.09.2013, charges under Sections 323, 356, 326, 504, 506 IPC was framed against the revisionists, to which, they denied and claimed trial.

8. In this case, in total 07 witnesses have been examined namely, PW1 Pankaj Ahluwalia, PW2 Shobhit Verma, PW3 Ishwar Chand Verma, PW4 Anil Kumar, PW5 Dr. Naresh Johri, PW6 S.I. Manohar Singh and PW7 R.K. Gupta, who proved the supplementary report and has stated that there was a hairline fracture in the parietal bone of PW2 Shobhit Verma.

9. The revisionists were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to them, they have been falsely implicated due to some property dispute.

10. After hearing the parties, by the impugned j