V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) BY this common order, I 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 under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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, under Section 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 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and under Section 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 under Section 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, under Section 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. 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.
(3.) 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 (Criminal) 578 as also Sawinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(1) RCR(Criminal) 163.;