IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision 2150 of 2003 Date of Decision : October 13, 2010 Mohinder Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Sukhdev Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for Mr. N.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioners, alongwith Gurbhag Singh and Pritam Singh, were summoned in a criminal complaint filed by respondent No.1 for facing trial under Sections 326/325/323/34 IPC. Both the petitioners put in appearance in the Court whereas Gurbhag singh and Pritam Singh failed to do so. They could not be arrested despite the issuance of warrants against them and were finally declared proclaimed offenders. The petitioners were, thereafter, charged for the aforementioned offences. Vide judgment and order dated 21.9.2002, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Zira came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 326 Crl. Revision 2150 of 2003 -2- IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, the petitioners were acquitted of the charge under Section 326 IPC. They were, however, convicted for the offences under Sections 325/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. They were also convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moga on 6.10.2003 by maintaining their conviction and sentences. The petitioners then filed the present revision in which they were granted the concession of bail on 7.11.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of his clients for the offences under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC. However, he has submitted that both the petitioners have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than seventeen years. According to the prosecution, both the petitioners were armed with a dang each. The injuries attributed to them were found to be simple in nature. For the role attributed to them, the petitioners have been held vicariously liable for offence under Section 325 IPC and substantially for offence under Section 323 IPC. Both the petitioners Crl. Revision 2150 of 2003 -3- had pleaded before the trial court that they were seventy years old. Each of the petitioners has already undergone a substantive sentence of four months out of the maximum sentence of one year imposed upon them. Under these circumstances, their remaining sentences of imprisonment be set aside. Learned State counsel has submitted that on account of the attack launched by the petitioners and their two co-accused, complainant Sukhdev Singh had suffered nine injuries out of which two injuries, i.e. injuries No. 2 and 6 were declared grievous in nature. Therefore, none of the petitioners deserves any concession in the matter of sentence. However, learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate as per which Mohinder Singh petitioner has already undergone an actual period of three months and twenty three days whereas in the case of Lakha Singh petitioner, the said period is three months and eighteen days. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, once again, for undergoing their remaining sentences of imprisonment. Ends of justice would be amply met if their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 325/34 and 323 IPC is maintained. Their Crl. Revision 2150 of 2003 -4- substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. However, the fine of Rs.200/- imposed upon the petitioners for the offence under Sections 325/34 IPC is enhanced by Rs.5,000/- each and in default of the same, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The enhanced amount of fine, when deposited, be paid to complainant Sukhdev Singh, as compensation. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. ( T.P.S. MANN ) October 13, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1