Crl. Rev. No. 821 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.821 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.7.2009 Balraj Kumar and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioners have been convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon under Sections 326/34 and 324/34 IPC. They preferred an appeal before the court of Sessions at Ludhiana. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, after appraising the evidence, upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is limiting his prayer only to the extent of reduction in the sentence awarded and does not assail the judgments of conviction. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that in case conviction of the petitioners is maintained, the Court may reduce the sentence as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Satnam Singh injured Crl. Rev. No. 821 of 2009 2 is having his shop adjacent to the shop of the petitioners. On 20th September, 1998, some dispute took place between them. Then on the instigation of petitioner No.1, petitioner no.2 gave Gandasi blows to Satnam Singh which hit on his left jaw and back. FIR was registered on the statement of Kapoor Singh. Both the petitioners were arrested by the police. To substantiate its case against the petitioners, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them. They denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 326/34 and 324/34 IPC. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 Balraj Kumar has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Likewise, petitioner No.2 Karamvir Malik has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On a perusal of the judgments, I am of the considered view that the courts below have correctly arrived at a conclusion that the Crl. Rev. No. 821 of 2009 3 petitioners were guilty of the offence alleged against them. The conviction of the petitioners is, thus, affirmed. Even counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments, has not assailed the judgment of conviction. He, however, pleaded for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the petitioners are the first offenders, they are having their family to look after and have already faced the agony of protracted trial for a number of years. Learned State counsel has placed on record reply by way of affidavit of Kuldip Singh Dhaliwal, PPS, Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana showing that petitioner No.1 has undergone 05 months and 14 days of his substantive sentence and petitioner No.2 has undergone 09 months and 14 days of his substantive sentence as on 7.7.2009. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are first offenders, it is directed that sentence of petitioner no.1 Balraj Kumar is reduced to six months and sentence of petitioner No.2 Karamvir Malik is reduced to one year. However, fine imposed, shall remain intact. Except with modification in the quantum of sentence, as indicated herein above, the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 08, 2009 'rajpal'