In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1107 of 2004 Date of decision: April 21, 2009 Shingara Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate and Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 4.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad-hoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') against the judgment dated 24.2.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, convicting and sentencing them as under :- Shingra Singh, Balwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh U/s 452 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. Shingara Singh U/s 324 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s 323/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Balwinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh U/s 323 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. U/s 324/34 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Crl. Revision No. 1107 of 2004 -2- *** In brief, the facts are that on 24.2.2001 at about 9.30 a.m. the complainant Jagtar Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant') went to the shop of Mohinder Singh son of Hazura Singh for making payment of cement, in the meanwhile, Shingara Singh armed with kirpan, Balwinder Singh armed with gandasa and Sukhwinder Singh armed with kulhari came there and exhorted to teach him a lesson for creating hurdle in collecting cash for the club. The complainant tried to bolt the door with the help of Mohinder Singh but the petitioners pushed open the gate and came inside the shop. Shingara Singh inflicted kirpan blow on his left arm, Balwinder Singh inflicted gandasa blow from its reverse side on his left arm and Sukhwinder Singh inflicted kulhari blow on his left leg. The complainant fell down and Balwinder Singh inflicted another gandasa blow from its reverse side on his left hand. Mohinder Singh tried to save the complainant but Balwinder Singh gave gandasa blow on his back. Avtar Singh (brother of the complainant) arrived at the scene at which the petitioners ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the case was registered and investigated. The petitioners were arrested and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 452/324/323/334 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Appeal preferred by them also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners without assailing the judgment of conviction has submitted that they are first offenders and have already undergone four months of the substantive sentence. He further prayed for taking lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No irregularity much less Crl. Revision No. 1107 of 2004 -3- *** illegality has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2001 and the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. They have already undergone four months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub them as habitual offenders. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them stand discharged. April 21, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge