- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
(2.) THIS revision petition under sec.397(1) read with sec.401 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 21st December 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Cr. Appeal No.34/1986 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the accused-appellant Pritam Singh filed against the judgment & order dated 02nd August 1986 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumagarh in Original Cr. Case No.282/1983 - State v. Pritam Singh & others, whereby the revision-petitioner Pritam Singh was convicted for offence punishable under sec.326 IPC and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two & half months. He was also convicted under sec.323 IPC and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. Initially, present petitioner Pritam Singh was accused in the matter along with Jeet Ram s/o Dula Ram and Mansha Singh s/o Jagan Singh. All the accused persons were convicted for offence under sec.323 IPC while accused persons Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram were convicted for offence under secs.326 and 326/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly. Accused persons Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram appealed against their conviction and sentence, wherein learned appellate court accepted appeal of Jeet Ram and acquitted him of the charge of offence under secs.326/34 and 323 IPC and set aside his conviction and sentence but rejected the appeal of present revisioner-accused. Now, present petition is preferred by remaining accused-petitioner Pritam Singh. Brief facts of the case are that a oral complaint was filed by Karnail Singh on 28.02.1981 at Police Station, Hanumangarh Town, inter alia, stating that he had gone to Bhompura to meet Hari Singh Dhanak. The day before, during daytime, when he and Hari Singh both were going to Bus Stand, then Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram were sitting there ? Jeet Ram was having a lathi while Pritam Singh was armed with 'gandasi' while Mansha Singh was coming after them, having a lathi. As soon they reached near the Bus Stand, Pritam Singh and Jeet Ram attacked upon them. Pritam Singh inflicted 'gandasi' blow, he raised his hand to defend and his right hand thumb got cut injury and a dismal injury was also suffered in his head. Jeet Ram inflicted lathi blow on his right shoulder and Pritam Singh also inflicted 'gandasi' blow on his shoulder, thereby he fell down. Manshi Singh inflicted a blow upon Hari Singh from behind and caused lathi blow on his chest from front. Upon raising hue & cry by them, Lal Chand and Begraj rushed towards them and alarmed the assailants, whereupon they left them by threatening that if they will go anywhere, they will be killed. They remained wandering around their house. On the basis of this oral complaint, FIR No.41/1981 was registered and investigation was started. During investigation, complainant and Hari Singh were got medically examined and their statements were recorded.
(3.) AFTER due investigation, challan was filed against accused persons and learned trial court framed charge under secs.326, 323 IPC against accused-petitioner Pritam Singh while under sec.326/34 and sec.323 IPC against the accused Jeet Ram and Mansha Singh. All accused persons denied the aforesaid charges and claimed trial. After due trial, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused persons Jeet Ram and Pritam Singh for the offences under secs.326/34, 326 and 323 IPC and accused Mansha Singh for the offence under sec.323 IPC. Upon appeal by Jeet Ram and Pritam Singh, vide impugned judgment dated 21st December 1995, learned appellate court accepted appeal of Jeet Ram and acquitted him of the charge and set aside his conviction while dismissed appeal of the accused-petitioner Pritam Singh; hence, present Revision Petition. In the present Revision Petition, though initially learned counsel for the accused-petitioner reiterated the grounds as urged before the appellate court below, however, in view of facts, circumstances and evidence on record, he chose not to press the revision petition on merits and submitted that the incident pertains to the year 1981, the accused- petitioner has been facing trial since then i.e. for around 30 years and he has been sentenced for one year's rigorous imprisonment. ;