In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1143 of 2003 Date of decision: May 01, 2009 Balesh @ Baleshwar and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 2.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 21/23.8.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs2500/- each under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 9.10.1997, the complainant Siri Bhagwan alias Lala along with his brother Asa Ram and neighbourer Shiv Kumar had started for their fields. Asa Ram and Shiv Kumar had gone to the tubewell of Shiv Kumar, whereas, Siri Bhagwan had gone to his own tubewell. At about 9.00 p.m. when the complainant reached his tubewell, Ishwar armed with iron rod and Balesh armed with lathi reached there and raised alarm to teach him a lesson. Ishwar Singh inflicted rod blow on his right shin and second blow on the left calf. Balesh inflicted lathi blows on his left shoulder, left hand and waist. On hearing cries, Asa Ram and Shiv Kumar reached there. On seeing them, the petitioners ran away with their respective weapons. On the basis of the Crl. Revision No. 1143 of 2003 -2- aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. The petitioners were arrested and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 323/325/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Their appeal also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they being first offenders and having already undergone 4- ½ months of the substantive sentence should be dealt with leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997 and the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. They have already undergone 4- ½ months of the substantive sentence. The sword of sentence remained hanging over their heads for long time. No bad antecedents have come forth from where the petitioners could be dubbed as habitual offenders. The petitioners, if are now sent to jail, then instead of reforming themselves they would turn out to be hardened criminals. As such, the ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them without alteration in the sentence of fine. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them stand discharged. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate Amicus Curiae may claim his remuneration as per rules. May 01, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge