CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitioners, namely, Siri Chand and Puran were tried, convicted and sentenced as under by the trial Magistrate vide his order dated 5th and 6th November, 1982. Puran petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and Siri Chand was sentenced to imprisonment for six months, each of them was also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months each, under section (sic) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Their conviction and sentence were upheld by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 14th October, 1981, at about 6 a.m. Ram Chander PW was going to his house from his fields. Both the petitioners met him on the way. They told him that they would teach him a lesson for speaking too much against them in the panchayat. At this Siri Chand petitioner caught hold of Ram Chander PW and Puran petitioner gave him a tooth-bite on the little finger of the left hand. On the intervention of Sanwal and Onkar PWs, Ram Chander PW was released. The matter was reported to the police on the next day after about 28 hours. Dr. Usha Sharma PW1 medically examined Ram Chander injured on 15 October, 1981 at 5.30 p.m. at Civil Hospital, Tosham. The doctor found one lacerated wound on the left little finger of Ram Chander PW measuring 6.8 cm, x 1.3 cm, which was caused with a blunt weapon.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Nehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that, according to the prosecution version, Ram Chander by chance met the petitioners and that it was Puran petitioner who gave a tooth-bite on his little finger. In such a situation it is doubtful whether section 34 of the Indian Penal Code could be made applicable as far as Siri Chand petitioner is concerned. I find considerable force in this argument and give the benefit of doubt to Siri Chand petitioner and acquit him of the charge and set aside his sentence. So far as Puran petitioner is concerned, I do not think that in view of the medical evidence an offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Consequently I acquit him of the charge under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convict him under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. His revision was admitted in this Court on 25th January, 1983. Since then he has been on bail. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by sending Puran petitioner to jail at this stage. Consequently I order that Puran petitioner be released on probation on his furnishing within two months to the satisfaction of the trial Court a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- with one surety in the like amount to keep the peace and be of good behavior for a period of one year and to appear to receive the sentence when called upon to do so in the meantime. However, Puran petitioner would pay Rs. 250 as compensation payable to Ram Chander PW within two months. If the compensation is not paid within two months, Puran petitioner would be called upon to serve the sentence which would be four months' rigorous imprisonment. With this modification, the revision qua Puran fails and is dismissed.