204/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 Sudama @ Dama and others …Appellants vs.

State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present : Mr. Sumeet Pal Singh Sindhu, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate and Ms. Sakshi Tanwar, Advocate and Mr. Sanjiv Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.01.2008 and order of sentence dated 22.01.2008, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby, the appellants were convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced as under:-

2. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 3, Satyawan had expired and the appeal qua him stands abated. The arguments have been heard in the present case regarding appellants No.1 and 2, only.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Anand Kumar, who is an agricultunst, is a resident of village Pauli (Police Station Julana). On 07.07.2004, at about 8-9 am., he alongwith his younger brother Dharam Pal, were repairing the drain in their fields. Adjacent to their fields are the fields of Banwari Lal, uncle of the complainant. Accused Sudama alias Dama, Satyawan and Jai Bhagwan sons of Banwari Lal were also present in the fields. Smt. Ratni wife of the complainant, in the meanwhile, had brought meals for the complainant. It is further the case of the prosecution that all the accused had questioned the complainant as to why he was closing the drain whereupon the complainant had replied that he was not closing the drain but was only repairing it. Accused Satyawan was having a Jelva, whereas, accused Jai Bhagwan and Sudama alias Dama were having lathies in their hands. Exhorting that the complainant was to be made to taste the fruit of closing the drain, accused Jai Bhagwan gave a lathi blow on the head of the complainant. There was a fight. Accused Satyawan gave Jelva blow (lathiwise) on right wrist of the complainant. Accused Sudama alias Dama gave a lathi blow to Dharam Pal (brother of the complainant) on his temporal region. Another lathi blow by him had hit left hand of Dharam Pal. The complainant was giving safety calls; these had attracted the villagers working in their fields, all the accused managed to flee with their weapons in their hands. The complainant, his wife and brother came back to their house. Dharam Pal became unconscious. Making arrangement for transport, the complainant brought injured Dharam Pal to CHC Julana for medical treatment. He was medicolegally examined and was referred to General Hospital, Jind. They reached General Hospital, Jind, wherein injured Dharam Pal was taken as indoor patient. Complainant Anand also got his medical treatment. Injured Dharam Pal was referred to PGIMS Rohtak. No neuro surgeon was available. Consequently, they were advised by the PGIMS authorities to take the injured to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, Delhi. The injured party did likewise. Injured Dharam Pal was got admitted in the said hospital at Delhi. Producing his own as well as MLR of Dharam Pal, the complainant making averments that he had suffered fracture in his hands, made complaint (Ex.PB) to ASI Rajbir Singh of Police Station Julana on 13.7.2004. Making his endorsement Ex.PB/1, ASI Rajbir Singh had sent the complaint (Ex PB) to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PB/2) was recorded. Investigations were conducted and spot was inspected and the accused were arrested. Weapons were recovered from them. After receipt of opinion of Neuro Surgeon that one injury to Dharam Pal was dangerous to life, offence under Section 307 IPC was added. After completion of necessary investigations, challan was filed against the accused.

4. After the presentation of challan, the appellants were charge- sheeted