Criminal Revision No.795 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.795 of 2005 Date of Decision : 7.2.2011 Kulwant Singh & others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated April 11th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra affirming the judgment of conviction dated 16th, July 2001 and order of sentence dated July 18th, 2001 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pehowa whereby petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 323 IPC SI for 3 months Rs.1000/- SI for 3 months 324 IPC SI for 6 months Rs.3000/- SI for 3 months 326 IPC SI for 1 year Rs.5000/- SI for 3 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. He added that in this case, occurrence took place in the year 1991, that is, 20 years ago between the petitioners and their cousin Gian Singh on the trivial issue of ploughing the common Doll (boundary of the field). In the occurrence, Darbara Singh-petitioner also received injury at the hands of the complainant. The only injury Criminal Revision No.795 of 2005 2 received on the person of Gian Singh which fell under the mischief of Section 326 IPC was injury No.7, that is, an incised wound on the left index finger as mentioned in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. This injury was attributed to Kulwant Singh who was about 73 years old at the time of conviction. The petitioners are the only bread winners of their families. They have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 20 years. They are not previous convicts nor have indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. 5. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 7.2.2011 SN