IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 20, 2011 Angrej Singh alias Geja and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab for the respondoent. A.N. Jindal, J Custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel is taken on record. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 10.8.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 3.12.2010 passed by trial court, however, the appellate court had modified the sentence awarded to Angrej Singh alias Geja and Baljit Singh alias Seeta by converting the same from Section 326/149 IPC to Section 324/149 IPC and reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year each accordingly. The sentence of fine imposed upon the accused under Section 326 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC was also set aside. However, the judgment of conviction and sentence qua the remaining accused under other offences was ordered to be remained intact. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners being the first offenders and having already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence, may be shown leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court appears to have appreciated the the evidence in the right perspective and rightly convicted the accused under Section 324 instead of Section 326 Criminal Revision No. 2017 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** IPC. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception could be made to the findings returned by the First Appellate Court is affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2002; the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against them since then; they have already undergone about three months of the substantive sentence and are ready to pay compensation; as such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified and is reduced to that of already undergone by them without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, they would pay `5000/- each, as compensation, to the injured which would be received by them in equal share. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, for compliance. September 20, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge