- (1.) Challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgement dated 20.08.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 and Section 326 read with Section 34, IPC, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsa, was dismissed. Ms. Divya Godara, learned counsel for petitioner No. 1 and Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners No. 2 and 3, at the very outset, submit that in view of the fact that both the Courts below have maintained the conviction of the petitioners, therefore, they do not want to argue the present Criminal Revision Petition on merits. However, there are fairly arguable points so far as sentence is concerned. To support their contention they have raised following arguments:- "(i) The motive of the quarrel was passing of the rainy water in front of the house of the parties; (ii) The occurrence had taken place in the year 1990 and the petitioners remained on bail during trial, at the appellate stage and even during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Petition, their sentences were suspended but they did not misuse the said concession; (iii) The injuries on the person of Chet Raminjured were on non-vital parts of the body and each of the petitioners had suffered approximately six months of the substantive sentence; (iv) That the petitioners are neither required nor involved in any other criminal case and, as such, they are first offenders."
(2.) Learned counsel for the State has produced the affidavits of Superintendent Jail, Sirsa, showing the period of incarceration suffered by each petitioner which are taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. Though learned counsel for the petitioners have proposed not to challenge the merits of the case but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available on record has been reappraised. As per the statement of Chet Ram (PW-1) the rainy water from his house was flowing in front of the house of the petitioners, who were his neighbours and, as such, they were annoyed. On 03.07.1990, when complainant-Chet Ram alongwith his other family members was present in his house, then petitioner No. 3, Jagmal Singh came in front of his house and asked him (Chet Ram) as to why the water from the house of the complainant was flowing in front of the house of the petitioners. There was an exchange of hot words and in the meantime, petitioner No. 2, Chhotu Ram threw brick-bats from the roof of his house causing injuries on the left foot and chest of Chet Ram. In the meantime, petitioner No. 1, Ram Singh carrying a barchi (a sharp-edged instrument) arrived at the spot and inflicted an injury on the right foot of Chet Ram. Chet Ram was shifted to a hospital at Hisar, where he was medico-legally examined. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented by prosecution against Ram Singh and Chhotu Ram only. The charges were framed and after examination of a few prosecution witnesses, Jagmal Singh, petitioner No. 3 was also summoned for facing the trial, in terms of Section 319, Cr.P.C. After framing of the fresh charges against all the three petitioners, the trial began.
(3.) The prosecution examined the following witnesses:- PW-1 Chet Ram-injured, he supported the prosecution version. He reiterated the version as he disclosed to the police; PW-2 Duli Chand, he is a son of the complainant and he narrated about the incident being an eye witness; PW-3 Head Constable, Om Parkash had investigated the case; PW-4 Dr. S.C. Mehta had medico-legally examined Chet Raminjured and he found as many as three injuries on the person of Chet Ram. On the basis of X-ray report, he declared injury No. 1 to be grievous in nature.;