IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.463 of 2003 Date of decision: 10th February, 2010 Mohinder Singh and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Mohinder Singh along with his son Gurdev Singh, daughter Amarjit Kaur and wife Gurbachan Kaur, were nominated as accused in case FIR No.132 dated 22.09.1995 registered at Police Station Zira under Sections 326/324/323/34 IPC. They had caused injuries to Nishan Singh, his son Baljit Singh, wife Balwinder Kaur and daughter Rajwinder Kaur. Nishan Singh appeared as PW-1, his wife Balwinder Kaur as PW-2, son Baljit Singh as PW-3 and his daughter Rajwinder Kaur as PW-4. Nishan Singh PW-1 had suffered five injuries. Injury No.2 and 3 on the person of Nishan Singh were found grievous. However, the lower appellate Court mention that injuries No.1, 2 and 3 were declared grievous. Be that as it may, injury No.1 was on the palm, injury No.2 on wrist and injury No.3 was on the elbow. Balwinder Kaur received three injuries, Baljit Singh two injuries and Rajwinder Kaur suffered one injury. According to Mr.S.P.S. Criminal Revision No.463 of 2003 Sidhu, appearing for the petitioners, the injuries on the person of Balwinder Kaur, Baljit Singh and Rajwinder Kaur were declared simple in nature. The trial Court has convicted all the four accused. Gurdev Singh was held substantively liable for offence under Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. His co-accused Mohinder Singh, Amarjit Kaur and Gurbachan Kaur were convicted under Section 326 IPC read with section 34 IPC. The trial Court sentenced Mohinder Singh substantively for offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, whereas, other co-accused were awarded similar sentence with aid of section 34 IPC. All the four accused were sentenced under Section 323 IPC substantively and also with the aid of section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that section 34 IPC is not attracted qua co-accused Amarjit Kaur and Gurbachan Kaur, therefore, they were acquitted for offence under Section 326 read with section 34 IPC, but were released on probation. However, conviction and sentence of Mohinder Singh and Gurdev Singh alias Debu was maintained. Mr.S.P.S. Sidhu, appearing for the petitioners Mohinder Singh and Gurdev Singh, has stated that in view of the testimony of Nishan Singh, Baljit Singh, Balwinder Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur, it will be an uphill task to assail the conviction of the petitioners. Counsel has stated that in the present case, occurrence had taken place in year 1995. About 15 years are going to elapse. There is complete peace prevailing in the 2 Criminal Revision No.463 of 2003 village. It is further submitted that petitioners have not committed any offence before or after the preset occurrence. Counsel has further submitted that petitioners have undergone about two months of their actual sentence. Counsel has prayed that sentence awarded upon the petitioners be reduced to already undergone. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that Nishan Singh suffered three grievous injuries. His son, wife and daughter were also injured in the occurrence. Therefore, it is not a case where sentence can be reduced to already undergone. For determining the sentence, this Court has to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. If causing of three grievous injuries is an aggravating circumstance, the fact that the petitioners had suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for about 15 years is mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the Court has to draw a balance. The Court also cannot ignore that in the last 15 years, accused have conducted themselves as honest, peaceful and law abiding citizens and this is another mitigating circumstance. At the time of occurrence, Mohinder Singh was aged about 65/70 years and Gurdev Singh about 25 years. By now, Mohinder Singh must be aged 80 years and Gurdev Singh 40 years. Age is another factor which is to be considered as mitigating circumstance. Therefore, taking totality of the circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioners under Section 326 IPC is reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to nine months rigorous imprisonment and the sentence awarded under Section 324 IPC is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence awarded under Section 323 is reduced from six months rigorous imprisonment to four months rigorous imprisonment, 3 Criminal Revision No.463 of 2003 however, sentence of fine and default clause is maintained. The sentences awarded under the various counts shall run concurrently. With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 10, 2010 rps 4