In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 678 of 2003 Date of decision: May 02, 2009 Balwan alias Bali and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. D.N. Ganeriwala, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 17.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 9/10.9.1998 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh, convicting and sentencing them as under :- All the accused U/s 148 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each. U/s 324 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each. U/s 325 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each. U/s 506 IPC : To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each. The factual matrix of the case is that on 3.3.1991, the complainant Sunil Kumar (herein referred as 'the complainant') along with his brothers Vijay Kumar and Sahab Singh was going on the tractor loaded Crl. Revision No. 678 of 2003 -2- *** with mustard crop. At about 12.30 p.m. when they reached near the girls school, Dhirey, Bali, Jagbir Singh, Shadi, Kartar Singh and their nephew came there with lathies, jellies, ballam and pharsa. Bali raised a lalkara and thereafter, all the petitioners inflicted injuries to him and his brother Vijay Kumar and Sahab Singh with their respective weapons. On raising hue and cry, the petitioners while threatening them to kill ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. The petitioners were arrested. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 148/324/325/506/149 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Their appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they being first offenders and having already undergone six months of the substantive sentence must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity 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 Crl. Revision No. 678 of 2003 -3- *** that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1991 and the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. They have already undergone six 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 without alteration in the sentence of fine. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them stand discharged. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar for compliance. May 02, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge