Criminal Revision No.1360 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1360 of 2007 Date of decision: 15.01.2009 Kehar Singh @ Ravel Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) vide judgment and order dated 9.1.2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridkot and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.7.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Hence, the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No.1360 of 2007 2 Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Brief facts of the case are that Sarjit Singh at about 9.30 P.M., on 24.8.2003 along with his father was going to the field. Sarjit Singh complainant/injured was going ahead and was followed by his father. When he reached near the house of Harbans Singh, electric bulb was on. Kehar Singh @ Ravel Singh accused armed with Kappa accompanied by one more person (description given) armed with dang was seen standing there. Kehar Singh raised a lalkara and gave a kappa blow on the head of the complainant. An alarm was raised by him. When Jagroop Singh father of the complainant tried to save him, the other assailant gave a dang blow on the head of the complainant and both the assailants ran away. The complainant was taken to G.G.S.Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. Motive behind the occurrence was that police had raided house of Kehar Singh, who suspected that he (complainant) was behind that raid. After completing necessary formalities of the investigation challan against accused Kehar Singh only was presented in the Court.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Criminal Revision No.1360 of 2007 3 Section 324 IPC but has only challenged the sentence part. He has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone about two months of actual sentence and his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner was not a previous convict. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in mind the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to as already undergone by the petitioner. With this modification, the present revision petition is disposed of. (SABINA) JUDGE January 15, 2009 anita