Criminal Revision No.1074 of 2005 -1- .... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1074 of 2005 Date of decision:- 09.12.2010 Faqir Chand ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: - Mr. G.S. Singhpura, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondent – State. .... A.N.JINDAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 21.05.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, dismissing the appeal with the modification in the sentence, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2003 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- . The allegations against the petitioner and his son Gurmeet Singh (since acquitted) are that he along with Gurmeet Singh was digging earth from the boundary (watt) of the field of the complainant and was putting in the watercourse, which was likely to damage the field of the complainant-Dial Singh. Complainant told Criminal Revision No.1074 of 2005 -2- .... both of them not to dig the earth from the boundary of his field and not to put the earth in the watercourse. Accused- Faqir Chand threw away his spade (Kahi); picked up a gandasi and inflicted a blow on the left leg of Dial Singh. Dial Singh raised alarm which attracted Bhago and Avtar Singh. On their intervention, the accused fled away. The case was registered against him and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. He was charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also dismissed with certain modifications in the sentence. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less perversity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction stand affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1998. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to pendency of proceedings for such a long time in various Courts. He has already undergone some period of the substantive sentence. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. Criminal Revision No.1074 of 2005 -3- .... Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala for compliance. (A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE 09.12.2010 neetu