IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.426 of 2004 Date of decision: September 28, 2010 Bhajan Singh and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The trial court vide judgment dated 14.9.2000 convicted all the accused persons and sentencing them as under :- U/s 326/149 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each. U/s 325/149 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to pay fine of Rs.1500/- each. U/s 324/149 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. U/s 323/149 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each. U/s 148 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. However, during appeal the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 11.2.2004 dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioners namely Bhajan Singh, Tejinder Singh and Avtar Singh with certain modifications in the sentence, whereas, the accused Babu (non-petitioner) was extended benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused Mansa Singh died during the pendency of the trial. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they being the first offender and having already undergone more than four months of the substantive sentence, must be extended some leniency on the quantum of Criminal Revision No.426 of 2004 -2- sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, without making any exception to the expression of opinion made by both the courts below regarding conviction, the same are maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1990 and the accused have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against them for the last 20 years. They have already undergone more than four 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 him. 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. They are also burdened to pay Rs.15000/- each as compensation which would be shared by both the injured equally. The compliance of the order would be made within three months from today failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, for compliance. September 28, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge