Criminal Revision No.480 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.480 of 1995 Date of decision: March 11, 2008 Channa etc. … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Mr. B.R.Gupta appearing for the petitioners at the outset stated that he will not be able to contest the conviction of the petitioners as substantial relief has been granted by the lower appellate Court, who by upholding the conviction, granted reduction of sentence in favour of the petitioners. It has been stated before me that the petitioners who were tried in case FIR No.122 dated 02.11.1990 registered at Police Station Division No.2, Ludhiana under Section 326/34 IPC were convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ludhiana to 2 ½ years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/-, and in default it was ordered that they will undergo imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against the same, they had filed their appeal. The learned appellate Court held that the motive imputed was weak and it was Criminal Revision No.480 of 1995 2 stated that the accused were peace loving persons. It will be apposite here to reproduce para 15, 16 and 17 of the lower appellate Court judgment: “15. It has been next submitted that the motive imputed is very weak, suffice it to say motive is something which has only to be un-earthed. It could possibly be known only to the accused why they caused injury to Poona Ram. As far as Poona Ram and Makhan Ram are concerned they could depose to the motive whatever they through that it could be. 16. Gobind Singh and Manmohan Singh have stated that the accused are peace loving persons. They have been putting up in their mohalla for the last 5-6 years. During this period they have been highly law abiding. Suffice it to say their evidence is of negative character. There evidence must have been given weight, if they had been present at the spot and stated about the genesis of the occurrence. 17. Sentence imposed upon them is however little harsher and sentence imposed upon them is slashed. Channa accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to undergo further R.I. for two months, under Section 326 IPC. Lala accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two months. Entire amount of fine, if recovered shall go to Punna Ram injured.” The facts which emerge from the reading of the judgments of the two Courts below are that on 20th October, 1990, statement of Puna Ram was recorded by ASI Nachatar Singh, in which it was stated that on 18th October, 1990 at about 11.30 a.m. complainant along with his brother Mukhan Lal and Raju were going to their house. When they reached near the house of Guddi then petitioner Channa armed with kirpan and Lala, who was empty handed, came from the opposite side. Lala is said to have caught hold the complainant and Channa gave one blow with kirpan which hit on his left eye brow. It is further stated that Channa wanted to cause another blow but complainant injured was saved by Raju. At that moment, Criminal Revision No.480 of 1995 3 the accused are said to have decamped from the spot along with their weapons. As stated earlier, counsel for petitioner has opted not to contest conviction. It emerges that Channa was arrested on 04.11.1990 and Lala was arrested on 14.11.1990. As per the counsel, they remained for few days as undertrial. Thereafter, their appeal was dismissed on 18th May, 1995 and they were granted bail by this Court on 30th July, 1995. Thus, as per the counsel, both the petitioners have undergone more than three months. It has been further stated by the counsel that in the last 17 years, petitioners have not only suffered a protracted trial, but they have been living as peace-loving and law-abiding citizens, an observation which was also made by the lower appellate Court. Since complainant and the petitioners are residing in the same locality, the very fact that no untoward incident has taken place and there is complete peace, sending the petitioners behind the bars at this stage may not disturb amity and cordial relations prevailing in the locality. Therefore, considering the protracted trial, antecedents and conduct of the accused and the very fact that one accused was sentenced to six months and another to one year and that they have undergone about three months, ends of justice will be met, in case their sentence is reduced to already undergone. Ordered accordingly. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge March 11, 2008. rps