SAT PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of Criminal Revision No. 1685 of 2004 (Sat Parkash v. State of Haryana) as well as Criminal Revision No. 2311 of 2004 (Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana).

(2.) The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1685 of 2004 were tried by Chief Judi- cial Magistrate, Kurukshetra with the allegations that on 12-6-1993 at about 6.00 p.m. they along with three others caused injuries to Hukam Chand. Vide judgment dated 15-2-2000, the trial Court held accused Pawan Kumar, Ram Saroop and Jai Parkash guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Section 323, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. The said accused were, thereafter, ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months. Sat Parkash petitioner was held guilty under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Sat Parkash was also convicted under Section 324, IPC and awarded RI for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Similarly, Raj Kumar, Satish Kumar and Suresh Kumar were convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Satish Kumar was also convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) Against their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions. Vide judgment dated 23- 7-2004, the Additional Sessions Judge (ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra altered he conviction of Sat Parkash under Section 326, IPC to one under Section 324, IPC. However, no separate sentence was awarded under the altered section as the said petitioner already stood convicted and sentenced under Section 324, IPC. Conviction and sentences of the remaining petitioners, as ordered by the trial Court were upheld and so also of Sat Parkash petitioner under Section 324, IPC.