CRR No. 1976 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CRR No. 1976 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2011 Pawan ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for the State. ... A.N. Jindal, J.(Oral) Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 18.8.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 12.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC . At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that two out of the three accused have already been released on probation and that the petitioner being the first offender and having already undergone one month CRR No. 1976 of 2011 2 of the substantive sentence, may be dealt with leniently on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the accused. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception could be made to the findings returned by the courts below. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence had taken place way back in the year 2003; two out of the three accused have already been released on probation; the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone one month of the substantive sentence; no bad antecedents have come on record so as to dub him as habitual offender. As such, in order to keep parity with the other accused, the nature of injuries and other peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be expedient in the interest of justice if some leniency is extended to him also Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court 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. Fine awarded against him is converted into costs of litigation. CRR No. 1976 of 2011 3 Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad for compliance. ( A.N. Jindal ) Judge 06.09.2011 sk.