OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.