Criminal Revision No. 859 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 859 of 1999 Date of Decision: 01.02.2008 Daljit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Mr. J.S.Virk, Advocate for the complainant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Criminal Revision No. 859 of 1999 has been preferred by Daljit Singh. He was prosecuted in case FIR No. 263 dated 25.10.1992 registered at Police Station Pehowa under Section 326 IPC. Before I advert to the facts, it would be pertinent to reproduce the injuries suffered by PW.1 Amar Singh. Complainant's counsel has supplied me the copy of testimony of PW.4 Dr. Rajan Kohli. PW.1 Amar Criminal Revision No. 859 of 1999 2 Singh had suffered the following injury:- “Incised wound 5.5 X 2.5 cm on the right leg 8 cm. above the ankle joint. Fractured bone was coming out of the wound. Both tibia and fibula were fractured as crepetus can be felt and leg can be rotated any side. Fresh bleeding was present. Injury was advised for X-ray for treatment purposes”. A perusal of the injury will show that the fractured bone was coming out of the wound. Both tibia and fibula were fractured and leg can be rotated any side. For this injury, the petitioner was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa. In a revisional Court, when evidence of PW.1 Amar Singh and PW.2 Khata Ram has been appreciated by both the Courts below and they have placed their reliance on their testimony for convicting the petitioner, I cannot take contrary view. One broad feature of this case is that the petitioner is sole accused. So the injured will be the last person to substitute any accused. Mr. Sidhu has contended that since in the present case occurrence pertains to October 1992, a period of about 16 years has lapsed. Protracted trial should be treated as a mitigating circumstance. The very nature of injury and the protracted trial call upon this Court to take into consideration both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It can be well perceived that person with such injury will remain immobalised for about one year. Victim has lost not only his avocation but has suffered pain and trauma. Ends of justice will be met Criminal Revision No. 859 of 1999 3 in case sentence of petitioner is reduced to one year and a fine is enhanced to Rs.35,000/-. Non-deposit of fine by the petitioner shall be considered as dismissal of the present revision petition. With the above modifications, present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 1, 2008 “DK