2023:PHHC:125466

CRR-1133-2009 (O & M)

::1::

(237)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR-1133-2009 (O & M)

Date of Decision: 21.09.2023

Deva Singh and ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:

Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Advocate,

for Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been filed against the

judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Kurukshetra whereby while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

07/08.02.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra,

the sentence has been modified/reduced.

2.

The instant FIR came to be recorded on the statement of

Ashok Kumar Malik, Teshildar, Pehowa who stated that he alongwith

Nakli Singh, Lilu Ram and Ram Bahadur in pursuance of an order

No.501/DRA dated 20.04.1999 regarding recovery of Rs.80,000/- went to

the house of Deva Singh (petitioner No.1), son of Amar Singh. They

SUKHPREET KAUR

2023.09.25 10:31

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:125466

CRR-1133-2009 (O & M)

::2::

(237)

were told that Deva Singh was present in his Bara. When he

accompanied with his colleagues, reached the Bara, then Deva Singh and

his sons Gurlal (petitioner No.5), Satish Kumar (petitioner No.3) and

Gurmeet Singh (petitioner No.4) alongwith one other unknown person

gave beatings to him and his colleagues. Based on the statement of the

complainant, the instant FIR came to be registered under Sections 332,

353 and 186 IPC.

3.

On the conclusion of the investigation, the report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented and on culmination of the trial, the

petitioners were convicted by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Kurukshetra vide judgment and order of sentence dated

07/08.02.2008 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment

alongwith payment of fine of Rs.600/- each under Section 332 IPC. They

were also convicted under Section 353 IPC and were sentenced to

undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-

each. In default of payment of fine, the convict-petitioners were to

further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 months. All the

sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

4.

The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Court of the

Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra which came to be dismissed vide

judgment dated 30.04.2009. However, the substantive sentence of the

petitioners was reduced to 06 months for the commission of offences

under Sections 332 IPC and 353 IPC whereas the sentence of payment of

fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine remained unchanged.

SUKHPREET KAUR

2023.09.25 10:31

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:125466

CRR-1133-2009 (O & M)

::3::

(237)

5.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the

aforesaid judgments of conviction.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

conviction is based on conjectures and surmises and the witnesses

examined are interested witnesses despite the availability of the

independent witnesses at the spot. There were material contradiction

and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. In fact, the instant

FIR was on account of political rivalry in the village as the petitioner

No.1 was the then Sarpanch of the village. The offence in question could

otherwise not have been established as no medico legal examination of

the purported injured had been conducted. He lastly contends that as the

offence was committed in the year 1999, the sentence imposed upon the

petitioners could be reduced since 24 years had elapsed ever since.

7.

Separate custody certificates dated 14.