Criminal Revision No. 1461 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1461 of 2001 Date of decision:- 15.12.2010 Jagtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present:- Mr. L.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG Punjab. A.N.JINDAL J.(Oral) This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 17.09.2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner and two others was partly accepted. Gulab Singh and Harbans Kaur were acquitted whereas while maintaining conviction of the petitioner under Section 325/34 IPC, the sentence was reduced to 1-½ years. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 19.05.1996 at about 10.00 AM when complainant alongwith his family members was going to his plot and reached in front of house of Mahinder Singh resident of Gangohar, the petitioner as well as Gulab Singh and Harbans Kaur caused them injuries. Consequently, the case against them was registered and investigated, which resulted into charge report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. They were charged under Sections 325/34 IPC to which Criminal Revision No. 1461 of 2001 -2- they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined four witnesses in all. 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 resulted into conviction of the petitioner and acquittal of two others. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel has sought some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less perversity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence. It is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1996. The petitioner has already suffered a lot of agony due to protracted proceedings which remained pending in the different Courts. 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 to the extent that the petitioner be released on probation Criminal Revision No. 1461 of 2001 -3- under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the injured Mukund Singh within three months from today, failing which petitioner would serve the remaining part of sentence as awarded by the Courts below. The fine as awarded to him by the Courts below is converted into costs of litigation. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, for compliance. December 15, 2010 (A.N.JINDAL) Vijay Asija JUDGE