-1- Criminal Appeal No.32-SB of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.32-SB of 1999 Date of Decision: January 08, 2010. Kuldip Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.1998 and the sentence order dated -2- Criminal Appeal No.32-SB of 1999 18.12.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of 5000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant was, however, acquitted of rest of the charges framed against him including the charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 506 of the Code. In fact, all the accused were acquitted of the said charges. Angrej Singh, Chetan Singh, Balbir Singh, Kulwant Singh, Baljit Singh, Jai Singh, Rai Singh, Sahab Singh and Mohinder Singh, co-accused of appellant Kuldip Singh, were extended the benefit of probation. Dayal Singh and Harnek Singh, other co-accused of appellant Kuldip Singh, who were allegedly armed with firearms at the time of occurrence, were acquitted of all the charges including the charge under Section 307/149 as the trial Court ruled out the use of firearms in the occurrence. After considering the ocular as well as medical evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court found that accused-appellant Kuldip Singh had caused a grievous hurt with blunt weapon resulting in the fracture of ulna of Bachan Singh. I have heard Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State of Haryana and have gone -3- Criminal Appeal No.32-SB of 1999 through the records of the case. In the instant F.I.R, two challans were filed in the Court. It was a case of free fight in which both the sides received injuries. On the side of the appellant party, three persons, namely, Jai Singh, Rai Singh and Sahib Singh were injured. On the side of the complainant party, three persons, namely Bachan Singh (P.W.7), Ram Sarup (P.W.10) and Gurnam Singh (P.W.11) had received injuries. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that out of the twelve persons challaned by the police, ten were convicted. Except the appellant, the other convicted accused were extended the benefit of probation. According to the learned counsel, similar benefit ought to have been extended to the appellant. Under the circumstances, it has been argued that the sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive and does not commensurate with the alleged offence. So far as the concession of probation granted by the trial Court to accused Angrej Singh, Chetan Singh, Balbir Singh, Kulwant Singh, Baljit Singh, Jai Singh, Rai Singh, Sahab Singh and Mohinder Singh is concerned, they were either convited under Section 323 or Section 324 of the Code. So, their case is not akin to that of appellant Kuldip Singh, who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 325 of the Code. Without dilating on the matter any further and after giving careful consideration to the points raised by -4- Criminal Appeal No.32-SB of 1999 learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appellant deserves leniency in the matter of sentence awarded to him. The occurrence in this case had taken place in September, 1991 and after a protracted trial, the appellant was convicted on 16.12.1998 and sentenced on 18.12.1998 by the trial Court. The sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended by this Court on 12.1.1999 when this appeal was admitted for hearing. Thus, the Sword of Damocles remained hanging over the head of the appellant for more than nineteen years. In view of the above and taking into account the fact that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for about twenty-five days after his conviction, I think no useful purpose will be served in sending the appellant to prison again at this stage and ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of his rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him. I order accordingly. However, in addition to the sentence of fine of Rs.5000/- imposed by the trial Court, the appellant is imposed further fine of Rs.20,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine, if realized, shall be deposited in the State Exchequer as litigation expenses. The impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above while maintaining the conviction -5- Criminal Appeal No.32-SB of 1999 recorded against the appellant by the trial Court. With the above modification in the sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed. January 08, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE