-1- Criminal Revision No.691 of 2006. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.691 of 2006. Date of Decision: January 11, 2010. Mehnga Singh and others ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioners Mehnga Singh, Hazura Singh, Hazara Singh, Nidhan Singh and Mohinder Singh, vide judgment of conviction dated 24.9.2003, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, were convicted under Sections 148, -2- Criminal Revision No.691 of 2006. 326, 326 read with Section 149, 325, 325 read with Section 149, 323 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). As per the sentence order of the even date i.e 24.9.2003 recorded by the trial Judge, the maximum sentence awarded to the petitioners under Sections 326, 326 read with Section 149, 325 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Code was rigorous imprisonment for one year besides total fine of Rs.2500/-, for various offences, imposed to each of the petitioner. The petitioners went in appeal before the lower appellate Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment dated 14.3.2006, held that the conviction of petitioner Mehnga Singh could not be sustained under Section 326 of the Code and the same was altered to Section 324 of the Code. Consequently, the conviction of the remaining petitioners was also altered from the offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 to Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Code. The sentence awarded to the petitioners under Section 324 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Code by the lower appellate Court was rigorous imprisonment for nine months besides fine of Rs.500/- each. The conviction and sentence of the petitioners for the other offences, as recorded by the trial Court, were maintained by the lower appellate Court. In this way, the maximum rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioners remained one year as was awarded to them by the trial Court under Sections 325 and 325 read with Section 149 of -3- Criminal Revision No.691 of 2006. the Code and upheld by the lower appellate Court and maximum fine of each of the appellant remained Rs.2500/- as was awarded by the trial Court for the various offences, mentioned above. Hence this revision petition I have heard Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab, and have gone through the records of the case. Jarnail Singh son of Shingara Singh and Baljit Singh son of Jarnail Singh had received injuries in this case at the hands of the petitioners on 10.6.1996. The instant F.I.R was registered on the basis of statement made by injured Baljit Singh on 10.6.1996 before Assistant Sub Inspector Nirmal Singh. As per the complainant, the petitioners, who were armed with with `Gandasis', `Lathis' and `Tangli' caused injuries to him (complainant) and Baljit Singh. After arguing the case at some length that only one `Gandasi' was produced in the Court and, as such, petitioner Mehnga Singh, who was not armed with any weapon, is entitled to acquittal, learned counsel for the petitioners did not seriously challenged the impugned judgments. He, however, prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence as the matter pertains to June, 1996 and the petitioners have faced agony of trial for a considerable time. Without dilating on the matter any further and -4- Criminal Revision No.691 of 2006. taking into account the fact that the Sword of Damocles has remained hanging over the heads of the petitioners for more than thirteen and a half years, I am of the opinion that the petitioners deserve leniency in the matter of sentence awarded to them. The occurrence in this case had taken place in June, 1996 and after a protracted trial, they were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in September, 2003. Their appeal was decided by the lower appellate Court in March, 2006. As mentioned in the order dated 29.5.2006 passed by this Court while admitting the revision petition and suspending the sentence of the petitioners, the petitioners have already undergone more than two months' imprisonment. In view of the above and taking into account the fact that the petitioners have already undergone incarceration for more than two months after conviction, I think no useful purpose will be served in sending the petitioners to prison again at this stage and ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of their rigorous imprisonment, for the offences mentioned above, is reduced to the one already undergone by them. I order accordingly. However, in addition to the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court, mentioned above, the petitioners are imposed further fine of Rs.75,000/- i.e Rs.15,000/- each. The petitioners are directed to deposit the fine in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing -5- Criminal Revision No.691 of 2006. which the petitioner, making such default, will undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The fine, if recovered, will be paid to both the injured Jarnail Singh son of Shingara Singh and Baljit Singh son of Jarnail Singh, in equal shares. The impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above while maintaining the conviction recorded against the petitioners by the lower appellate Court. With the above modification in the sentence order, this petition is hereby dismissed. January 11, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE