V.K. Bali, J.@mdashBy this common order, f propose to decide two connected Criminal Revisions bearing No. 821 of 1988 (Om Parkash and
another versus State of Haryana) and 822 of 1988 (Mange Ram versus State of Haryana), as the same emanate from one FIR and a common
judgment recorded by the learned Courts below.
2. These revisions have been directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.1987 recorded by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, wherein Om Parkash has been held guilty for an offence punishable u/s 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years as also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He has further been held guilty for an offence punishable u/s 325 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. He has further been held guilty for an offence punishable under
Sections 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and u/s 323 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Mange Ram has since been held guilty for
an offence punishable u/s 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, u/s
325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year as also to pay fine of
Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. He has also been held guilty for
an offence punishable u/s 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
months and u/s 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
Insofar as Surjit Singh, is concerned, he has been held guilty for an offence punishable u/s 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, u/s 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months as also to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month. He has also been held guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. However, the sentences, awarded to the
petitioners, were ordered to run concurrently. The order of conviction and sentence, referred to above, has since been affirmed in an appeal that
came to be preferred by the petitioners, vide order dated 6.8.1988 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hisar.
3. Brief facts, as disclosed in the FIR, reveal that Smt. Chiriya wife of Sohan Lal was residing in village Sarsana, She had four sons, namely, Ram
Sarup, Ram Singh, Sunder Singh and Bhim Singh. Ram Sarup and Ram Singh were married, while Sunder Singh was dumb and insane and Bhim
Singh was in the employment of Military. Ram Sarup was service as a driver in Haryana Roadways and Ram Singh was working as a Chowkidar
in godowns at Ellenabad. Ram Singh had come on 2-3 days leave from Ellenabad. At about 8.00 P.M. on 9.4.1979, the complainant heard alarm
of Mar-dita, Mar-dita. As door of the house was bolted from outside, complainant Chiriya went over to the roof of the house and saw that Om
Parkash was armed with a Kulhari, Surjit Singh was catching hold of her son Ram Singh and Mange Ram was armed with a Lathi. Om Parkash
gave a Kulhari blow on the head of Ram Singh, while Mange Ram gave a lathi blow over right knee of Ram Singh. At this, Ram Singh had fallen
but Om Parkash inflicted several other Kulhari blows and Mange Ram had also given lathi blows which caused many injuries on many parts of
body Ram Singh. Smt. Savitri wife of Ram Singh had also come running at the spot and complainant raised an alarm crying for help saying that
petitioners would kill her son. Thereafter, all the petitioners took Ram Singh to the house of Om Parkash. According to complainant, wives of
petitioner Om Parkash and Ram Singh had quarrelled with each other and thereafter, their husbands had also quarrelled over that matter but that
matter had been got compromised by the Panchayat. However, the petitioners had kept a grudge of that quarrel in their minds.
4. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioners, without joining issues on merits, however, vehemently contends that the incident
took place on 9.4.1979, ultimately resulting in accusation on 30.11.1987, and by now, a period of 22 years has gone by. In the manner aforesaid,
the petitioners had to undergo an agony of protracted trial, spanned over a number of years, mentioned above. All the petitioners have since
already undergone sentence for a period of about 2-1/2 months and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the order of conviction against
the petitioners, they are dealt with leniently and their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. In support of his aforesaid contention,
learned counsel relies upon judgments of this Court in cases Basant Singh v. State of Punjab 2000(4) RCR (Cri) 578 as also Sawinder Singh v.
State of Punjab 2000(1) RCR (Cri) 163.
5. After hearing learned counsel representing the parties, this Court is of the view that inasmuch as number of years have gone by and the
petitioners have already undergone an agony of protracted trial, spanned over all these years, they deserve lenient view in the matter of sentence
and ends of justice would be met, if, while upholding the order of conviction recorded against all the petitioners, sentence imposed upon them is
reduced to the one already undergone. So ordered. Insofar as Om Parkash is concerned, he had given several injuries. Thus, it is a case, where
fine needs to be increased to Rs. 5,000/-. So ordered. In the event of default of payment of fine, however, Om Parkash shall undergo the
sentence, as imposed by the learned Courts below. If fine is paid, the same shall be remitted to Ram Singh injured.
6. These revisions are partly allowed in the manner, indicated above.
7. Revisions party allowed.