Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 400 (PNJ)

Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana

2016-02-01

HARI PAL VERMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : HARI PAL VERMA, J. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) seeking condonation of delay of 332 days in filing the present criminal revision petition. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, namely, Shanti Devi has contended that the lower appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 7.6.2012 had directed that intimation be sent to the petitioner Shanti Devi and her husband Roshan Lal, but no intimation was received by them. However, on 31.5.2013, when the petitioner-complainant came to know that respondents No. 2 and 3 have already been acquitted by the appellate Court, then she rushed to Chandigarh immediately. In this manner, delay of 332 days has occurred in filing the present revision petition and the same may be condoned. Undisputedly, the FIR No. 121 dated 25.9.2001 under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Satbir Singh and Rajesh at Police Station, Kosli on the complaint of petitioner Shanti Devi. She has appeared before the trial Court as PW2 and her husband, namely, Roshan Lal appeared in the witness box as PW8. Moreover, it is a conceded fact that both the parties belong to the same village i.e. Gujjarwas. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings pending against respondents No. 2 and 3 in the appellate Court. The delay of 332 days in filing the present revision petition is inordinate one and the petitioner has not been able to sufficiently explain the same. Thus, the present application does not satisfy the parameters of law as laid down under Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the present application and the same is, resultantly, dismissed. Main Case Though after dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Act, the present petition is not required to be discussed elaborately, but still for just and fair decision of the matter, the revision petition is being decided on merits as well. Petitioner Shanti Devi has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 7.6.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby the appeal filed by respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Satbir Singh and Rajesh was partly accepted. Petitioner Shanti Devi has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 7.6.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby the appeal filed by respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Satbir Singh and Rajesh was partly accepted. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kosli vide judgment of conviction dated 21.3.2011 held respondents No. 2 and 3 guilty for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC and vide separate order of sentence dated 25.3.2011 sentenced them as under:- Offence Sentence 323 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 325 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five days each. It was, however, ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 7.6.2012 has released respondents No. 1 and 2 on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on their furnishing personal bond/probation bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, without supervision, with the condition that they would maintain peace and be of good behaviour during the said period. Dissatisfied with the verdict of learned appellate Court, petitioner Shanti Devi has filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that learned appellate Court has committed legal error in modifying the sentence and releasing respondents No. 2 and 3 on probation especially in the light of evidence available against the convicts beyond all reasonable doubt. There was a clear intention and motive of respondents No. 1 and 2 to cause injuries upon the peace-loving persons of the complainant side and in case, the prosecution evidence is read in its totality, respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to be awarded even higher sentence. Their release on probation tantamount to acquittal and, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 7.6.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has prayed for enhancement of the sentence awarded to respondents No. 1 and 2 by learned trial Court. He has further prayed that even the compensation @ Rs. 8,000/- granted by the appellate Court to petitioner and her husband in equal share may also be enhanced. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel has prayed for enhancement of the sentence awarded to respondents No. 1 and 2 by learned trial Court. He has further prayed that even the compensation @ Rs. 8,000/- granted by the appellate Court to petitioner and her husband in equal share may also be enhanced. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the FIR in question was registered against respondents No. 2 and 3 as far back as on 25.9.2001 and since then, they are facing the agony of criminal proceedings. As regards complainant Shanti Devi, MLR Ex.PW6/A reveals that only one injury on her person as observed by Dr. P.D. Mehra, which read as under:- “Diffuse swelling was present in the left arm lower half of elbow and upper half of forearm pain was there. Tenderness was there. Reddish discoloration was present, advised xray. This injury was kept under observation and caused by blunt weapon within probable duration of 36 hours.” Similarly, as regards injured Roshan Lal, as per statement of PW6, three injuries were found on his person out of which injury No. 3 was simple in nature and injuries No. 1 and 2 were advised for xray report. In xray report, injury No. 1 was found grievous in nature as there was a fracture humerous left. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner Shanti Devi and her husband Roshan Lal, learned Magistrate had convicted respondents No. 2 and 3 for one month RI under Section 323 IPC and 3 months RI under Section 325 IPC. However, learned appellate Court, though, ordered for release of respondents No. 1 and 2 on probation, but awarded compensation of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant and her husband on account of the aforesaid injuries suffered by them. Perusal of the records reveals that the amount of compensation was deposited by respondents No. 2 and 3 before learned appellate Court. Thus, taking into consideration the nature of injuries and the fact that respondents No. 2 and 3 are facing the agony of proceedings since 2001, this Court finds that there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 7.6.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari which may warrant interference of this Court by invoking its revisional jurisdiction. As such, affirming the same, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.