CRR No.366 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRR No.366 of 2005 Date of decision : 19.11.2010 Mangata Singh and others .........Petitioners Vs. The State of Punjab ........Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present : Ms.Manisha Sihota, Advocate, for Mr.Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab ----- A.N.JINDAL, J (Oral) : This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2004 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment dated 25.8.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya, convicting and sentencing them as under :- Name of convict Offence u/Section Sentence awarded Mangata Singh 148 & 186 IPC RI for a period of six months Jaimal Singh, each on both counts Ginder Singh, Lakha Singh, Jodha Singh Ginder Singh, 332 IPC RI for a period of one year Jaimal Singh and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each CRR No.366 of 2005 -2- Mangata Singh 332 IPC read SI for a period of one year Lakha Singh, with Sec.149 and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- Jodha Singh IPC each Charges against the petitioners are that they while armed with Kirpans and dangs caused injuries to Narinder Singh. The petitioners were tried. Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced accordingly. Their appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence has been appreciated by both the courts below in the right perspective. The ocular version fits in with the medical evidence. The accused have not been able to lead any plausible defence. It is also well settled by now that re- appreciation of evidence at this revisitional stage is not permissible. Now coming to the quantum of sentence. It has been noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1994. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of agony due to the pendency of the protracted proceedings in the Courts for the last 16 years. The petitioners have already undergone about two and a half months of the substantive sentence. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. CRR No.366 of 2005 -3- Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. (A.N.JINDAL) 19th Nov., 2010 JUDGE akm