Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2004 Date of decision:- 15.12.2010 Paramjit Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. Narinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG Punjab. A.N.JINDAL J.(Oral) This revision petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 16.1.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 24.4.2002, passed by trial Court at Zira, convicting and sentencing the petitioners-accused (hereinafter referred as 'the accused') as under:- CONVICT PARAMJIT SINGH:- (i) Under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. (ii) Under Section 323 IPC to undergo RI for six months. CONVICT CHAND SINGH:- (i) Under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo RI for nine months and pay fine of Rs.500/-. Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2004 -2- (ii) Under Section 323 IPC to undergo RI for six months. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 20.11.1995 at about 7.00 PM when the complainant Atma Singh had gone to Dera Baba Sham Dass, accused named above had caused him injuries with sharp as well as blunt weapons. Case against them was registered and investigated, which resulted into charge report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. They were charged under Sections 326,324,323,34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined six witnesses. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. No evidence was led in defence. The trial ended in conviction. Their appeal was also dismissed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel seeks some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, while peeping into the merits of the case, it transpires that both the Courts below have duly appreciated the evidence and there is nothing to mention if the evidence was not properly appreciated or there is manifest error apparent on the record, resulting into miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court. Accused Sukhdev Singh has already expired. As regards the quantum of sentence, the occurrence took Criminal Revision No. 326 of 2004 -3- place in the year 1995 and since then the accused have been facing agony of trial. Accused Chand Singh was 74 years old at the time of occurrence i.e. on 20.11.1995, thus, now he being about 89 years old must be in the evening of his life. The sword of sentence remained hanging over their heads for the last fifteen years and they have already undergone some part of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence, which is reduced to already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, for compliance. December 15, 2010 (A.N.JINDAL) Vijay Asija JUDGE