IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

236 CRR-3175-2016 (O&M)

Date of decision: 21.04.2026 Sumer Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2015 as well as against the judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2014 and order of sentence dated 10.12.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari in case arising from FIR No.138 dated 23.07.2010 registered under Section 323, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station: Kasola, to the extent whereby the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 have been released on probation.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that FIR No. 138 dated 23.07.2010 was registered against the respondent–accused persons on the complaint of the petitioner herein. As per the said complaint, on 31.05.2010 at about 3:00–4:00 P.M., when the petitioner was present in his fields along with his camel, the respondent–accused persons came there and assaulted him without any provocation. It is further alleged that one Narender, stated to be under the influence of liquor, inflicted a lathi blow on the foot of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the General Hospital, Rewari, by his son Jagdish for medical treatment. It is also a matter of record that civil litigation was pending between the parties.

3. During investigation, the respondents-accused persons were arrested. Investigation was conducted and a final report was filed.

4. On finding a prima facie case punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC, charge was framed against the accused, to which the respondents-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The parties led their respective evidence and on consideration thereof, the Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 08.12.2014, convicted the respondent-accused persons for offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide a separate order of 10.12.2014, the respondents- accused persons were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent–accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2015, whereas the petitioner herein instituted Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2015. The petitioner contended that the evidence on record clearly disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 325 IPC; however, the Trial Court failed to record any finding in that regard and, consequently, did not impose any sentence against the said offence. On these grounds, the petitioner had assailed the judgment of the Trial Court. Per contra, the respondent–accused persons challenged the order of conviction recorded against them even for offence under Section 323/34 IPC.

7. On consideration of respective arguments advanced by both the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 325 IPC stood proved and, accordingly, allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, to the above extent and recorded a conviction of the respondent–accused persons for the said offence. However, taking into account the overall conduct of the parties, the fact that they were closely related as uncle and nephew and that the occurrence appeared to be an outcome of a sudden and isolated incident, the Appellate Court held that there was no necessity to enhance the sentence already awarded under Section 323 IPC and found the same to be adequate. The Appellate Court further noticed the existence of several mitigating circumstances and, consequently, exte