- (1.) THIS petition was preferred by the Petitioner against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2013 in Criminal Revision No. 1804 of 2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by which the revision was dismissed. The sentence awarded to the Petitioner by the courts below, i.e., for a period of 3 years upon being convicted under Sections 324 and 325 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian Penal Code') was reduced to a period of six months, though the amount of fine has been enhanced from Rs. 2500/ - to Rs. 40,000/ -. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that: A. An FIR dated 6.4.2005 was filed by one Vikrant Sharma against the Petitioner for causing injuries to his cousin Ankit and, in view thereof, the law was put in motion. B. After investigation of the case, the charges were framed against the Petitioner under Sections 324 and 326 Indian Penal Code and upon conclusion of the trial, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 13.10.2011 convicted the Petitioner under Section 324 Indian Penal Code awarded a sentence of 3 years; and while convicting under Section 326 Indian Penal Code sentence of 3 years RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 2500/ - was imposed. C. Aggrieved, the appeal was preferred by the Petitioner and the appellate court vide judgment and order dated 2.5.2013 did not find any merit in the appeal and did not interfere either with the quantum of punishment or conviction. However, a further amount of Rs. 10,000/ - was imposed by the appellate court as a compensation to be awarded to the victim. D. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a criminal revision which had been partly allowed by the order dated 12.8.2013 reducing the sentence to six months and enhancing the amount of fine to Rs. 40,000/ -. E. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a special leave petition before this Court contending that the sentence of six months awarded by the High Court is too harsh, and though the Petitioner has substantially served put the said sentence, it has been prayed that the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 be given to the Petitioner.
(2.) THIS Court not only rejected the special leave petition on 27.8.2013 but also passed the following order: After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition. Permission to withdraw is rejected. We do not find any force in the petition. It is other way round. The Petitioner had been convicted under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'Indian Penal Code') by the trial court and the first appellate court, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction had shown the misplaced sympathy totally unwarranted and made a totally wrong observation that the victim had suffered simply injuries and reduced the sentence from 3 years R.I. to 6 months. The injuries have been found on the person of the injured by Dr. Munish Purthi P.W. 4 which are quoted hereinbelow: i) An incised wound right frontal and parietal area 3.0 X 0.75 cm bone deep oblique with bleeding. Advised X -rays, Surgeon opinion and Ortho, Opinion; ii) An incised would left anterior suplliac spine area oblique with fresh bleedings 3 x 1.5 cm x bone deep, Ortho, opinion and X -rays were advised; iii) An incised would posterior and above to 1st above mentioned would oblique 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm; iv) An incised would left hand medical side middle part horizontal throughout the hand. 4 x 1 cm with tendons cut and bone exposed. Ortho opinion, and X -rays were advised; v) An incised would left writs 5 x 1 x.25 cm oblique in direction; vi) An incised would left tibia lateral upper part 6.5 x 35 cm bone deep oblique. X -ray and Ortho opinion were advised; vii) An incised wound left knee, dorsum oblique 4.5 x 1.5 cm viii) An incised wound right forearm ventral aspect distal part right redial pulse absent. All intervening muscle and tendons cut 10 x 8 cm x bone deep, X -rays and Ortho opinion were advised. The High Court ignored the head injury and held that there was an injury on the finger of the left hand and other injuries were simple in nature. Therefore, the finding recorded by the High Court are totally perverse and cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the Petitioner is given show cause why the punishment awarded by the trial court and the first appellate court as 3 years R.I. be not restored. Reply may be made within three weeks. We straight away reject the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that the amount of compensation be enhanced as it would be adding insult to the injuries. An accused who is capable to pay money can make a suggestion that he has a right to cause injury and can afford to pay the compensation, thus should not be sent to jail.
(3.) IN view of the above, it is evident that Ankit -victim, suffered grievous injury on the head which has been totally ignored by the High Court as it misunderstood the site of injury and only took into account the simple injury on the finger of the victim. In Mahesh and etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1987 SC 1346, while dealing with a similar issue, this Court held as under: it will be a mockery of justice to permit these Appellants to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the Appellants would be to render the justicing system of this country suspect. The common man will lose faith in Courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon.... ;