Crl. Revision No.448 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.448 of 2002 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 06, 2009 Sohan Lal .....PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Gill, D.A.G., Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.1.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, where upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 325/323 IPC passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar vide judgment dated 16.3.1999, reduced the sentence under Section 325 IPC from three years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323 IPC to six months from rigorous imprisonment of one year. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is based on the statement of injured Doonger Ram to the effect that on 21.6.1997 at about 9.00 p.m. he was returning back to his village Mojgarh and when he reached near the petrol pump of the said village he saw Pappu son of Khiali Ram resident of Mojgarh in a drunken condition standing on the side of the road. On seeing Pappu in a drunken condition he caught hold of him for leaving Crl. Revision No.448 of 2002 -2- him to his house. When they reached in front of house of Jamna Dass, accused Sohan Lal came from behind and abused him and told him that he would be taught a lesson for accompanying Pappu. Thereafter, Sohan Lal caused three injuries with his dang, which hit him on his left shoulder, right arm and right leg. On raising hue and cry, his uncle Munshi Ram son of Chuni Ram came there and got him released from the clutches of accused Sohan Lal. Thereafter, Sohan Lal along with his dang fled away from the spot. On 22.6.1997 his uncle Munshi Ram got him admitted in Civil Hospital, Panjkosi where he was medico-legally examined. The motive behind the occurrence put forth by the complainant was that Sohan Lal and Pappu are not on good terms and as he was accompanying Pappu the accused caused him injuries. On the basis of this statement, report was registered in the roznamcha and on 28.6.1997 after receiving x-ray report, FIR was registered against the accused. Thereafter, HC Tilak Raj along with other police officials reached the place of occurrence, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested from the spot. After recovering the dang used in the commission of offence, the case property was deposited with the MHC. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined five witnesses, including PW1-Dr.S.K.Juneja, Radiologist, PW2-Baldev Raj, Medical Officer and PW3-Doonger Ram (complainant), and thereafter the evidence of the prosecution was closed. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the allegation of the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated Crl. Revision No.448 of 2002 -3- in this case. In defence, the accused examined only one witness, i.e., DW1- Mohinder Singh. The trial Court after taking into consideration the material available on the record and the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, convicted and sentenced the accused under Sections 325/323 IPC. On appeal, the conviction of the petitioner was upheld and sentence imposed on the petitioner under the said Sections was reduced for the period, as indicated above. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below as well as the record of the case. After arguing for some time, when the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, she submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, further lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel submits that out of one year of sentence, the petitioner had already undergone actual sentence of 4 months and 5 days. She further submitted that since May 29, 2002 the petitioner is on bail. He has already suffered protracted trial for the last about 12 years. She further stated that since the petitioner is the first offender and not a previous convict, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2) RCR (Crl.) 108. In these facts and circumstances, even learned counsel for the respondent-State has not strongly objected if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period Crl. Revision No.448 of 2002 -4- already undergone by him. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the quantum of sentence, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage when he has already undergone 4 months and 5 days of total sentence; he has faced the protracted trial for the last about 12 years; he is the first offender and is on bail since May 29, 2002. Thus, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine of Rs.100/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited by him within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo the whole of the substantive sentence as imposed by the Appellate Court. In case the enhanced amount of Rs.4900/- is deposited (i.e. total amount of Rs.5000/- minus Rs.100/- already imposed), it shall be disbursed to injured Doonger Ram without any delay by the trial Court. With the above modification in the sentence, the criminal revision is dismissed. March 06, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE