Criminal Revision No. 775 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 775 of 1996 Date of decision : 30.7.2008 Harminder Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Rawat, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 13.9.1996 rendered by Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby he upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, in FIR No. 109 dated 7.7.1993, registered under Section 323/ 324/ 325/ 326 IPC at Police Station, Dhuri, District Sangrur, vide which the petitioner was sentenced as under:- U/s Sentence of R.I. Fine In default 326 IPC One year Rs. 200/- Three months 325 IPC Six months Rs. 100/- one month 324 IPC Four months -- -- 323 IPC Three months -- -- The facts of the case are that on 8.6.1993, the complainant Nachhattar Singh got his statement recorded before the police that on 4.6.1993 at about 9.00 p.m. the petitioner, his son, tied his bullocks at the door of the house of Jujhar Singh his another son and told him that he is owner of the house and nobody can prevent him from doing so. He also abused Karnail Singh panch and the complainant. On 5.6.1993 at about 5.00 a.m. the petitioner removed his bullocks from there. Shortly thereafter he again came to the house of Jujhar Singh and pounced upon him, who went inside the room and bolted the same from inside. The wife of the complainant tried to prevent the petitioner but he pushed her away. The complainant asked the petitioner to go away but he gave dang blows to him, as a result of which he became unconscious and the petitioner gave five Criminal Revision No. 775 of 1996 2 blows with knife on the person of the complainant. Chand Singh and wife of the complainant rescued him from the petitioner. After completion of investigation, the challan against the petitioner was presented. He was charged for the aforesaid offence to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case as he had a dispute with his father regarding the property. Two witnesses were examined, in defence. After appraisal of the entire evidence before it, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment and pay fine as mentioned above. Dissatisfied with the aforementioned verdict, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, who vide judgment dated 13.9.1996, affirmed the order passed by the learned trial court. The petitioner has now knocked the door of this court by filing the present revision petition. When the revision was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the out-set, contended that without adverting to the merits of the case, his prayer would be confined only to the fact that this court may take a lenient view of the situation considering the fact that the petitioner is the son of the complainant; he was not a habitual offender; he had faced the agony of trial before the Courts for about twelve years; and further that he has three minor children, wife to support being the sole bread- earner of the family. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, he has already undergone actual imprisonment of about three months. He further submitted that the petitioner is suffering from blocked urinary track. The complainant is father of the petitioner. Inspite of the fact that he has been hit by the petitioner, his son, he still has soft corner for him and his family. The petitioner has placed on record affidavit of the complainant stating therein that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner himself was suffering from blocked urinary track and also that he had to look after his wife and minor children, he prayed that mercy be shown to the Criminal Revision No. 775 of 1996 3 petitioner. It is a live example of old saying, 'blood is thicker than water', where inspite of the fact that the petitioner had hit his father and even after his being convicted the father still has a soft corner for his son and his family. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner faced trial for twelve years and also that the petitioner must have learnt the lesson seeing generosity of his father, I am of the opinion that a lenient view in the matter of sentence deserves to be taken. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to him is modified to that of period already undergone by the petitioner. The sentence of fine shall remain intact. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 30.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge