Criminal Revision No.656 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.656 of 2005 Date of Decision: 18.1.2011. Mohan Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated March 18th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurukshetra affirming the judgment of conviction dated April 27th, 2000 and order of sentence dated May 1st, 2000 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, whereby, petitioner Mohan Lal was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 323/34 IPC RI for 3 months 324/34 IPC RI for 6 months 325/34 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.200/- RI for 1 month 326/34 IPC RI for 3 years Rs.600/- RI for 2 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Mohan Lal along with his brother, father and mother was challaned in case bearing First Information Report No. 96 dated April 27th, 1993 under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Thanesar on the complaint filed by Swaran Singh brother of the petitioner. Trial Court convicted Criminal Revision No.656 of 2005 2 the petitioner and his three aforesaid co-accused for the offences aforesaid. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Janak Raj and Mam Chand. Accused Jeeto mother of petitioner died during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of sentence. 4. It calls for pointed notice that occurrence in this case had taken place between the petitioner, his father, another brother and mother on one side and Swaran Singh brother and his wife Raj Rani on the other side on April 27th, 1993. Swaran Singh and Raj Rani received injuries. The petitioners have suffered the agony of criminal proceedings spreading over a period of 18 years. The injuries which fell under the mischief of Section 326 IPC were on the back of right forearm of Raj Rani and on the right leg of Swaran Singh and the remaining injuries were simple in nature. The petitioner is not a previous convict nor has he indulged in any criminal activity before the registration of the present case or after conviction. He is the only bread earner of the family. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the injuries were not caused on the vital part and it was a family dispute, this Court is of the opinion that these are mitigating circumstances which justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 6. The revision petition is partly accepted as indicated above. 18.1.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE