IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1373 of 2002 Date of decision: 5th April, 2010 Kuldeep Singh alias Dogar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Kuldeep Singh alias Dogar was named as an accused in case FIR No.89 dated 22.10.1997 registered at Police Station Morinda under Section 325 IPC. The Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar vide its order dated 15.01.2002 held the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Court vide order dated 06.05.2002, while dismissing the appeal upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence from two years to 1 ½ years rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine and default clause were maintained. It is stated that the fine was paid by the petitioner. Criminal Revision No.1373 of 2002 In the present case, the FIR was registered on the basis of ruqa Ex.PD received from the hospital. It was stated therein that Darshan Singh son of Ujjagar Singh was admitted in the hospital. The ruqa contained statement Ex.PA made by Darshan Singh injured stating that he was a Sarpanch of the village and an agriculturist. On 26th September, 1997, he was returning to village Amrali from Morinda on his scooter. At about 6.00 p.m., when he reached near the fields of Atma Singh, he found the present petitioner standing there. He was signaled to stop. The accused asked the complainant to depose in his favour in a criminal case pending against the petitioner. The complainant refused to do so. At that stage, the accused caught hold of the complainant from his hair and threw him on the floor. The accused gave fist blows on the chest of the complainant and twisted his left leg. The complainant raised a noise, which attracted Paramjit Singh son of Bachittar Singh and Avtar Singh son of Chajja Singh. The complainant was brought in a private vehicle and was got admitted in the hospital. Statement Ex.PA was recorded on 27th November, 1997. The complainant was medico-legally examined by PW-3 Dr.C.P.Singh, who found the following injuries on his person: 1. Complains of pain and swelling left knee joint. On examination swelling present movement painful and restricted. No external injury. X-ray was advised left knee joint A.P.& lateral. 2. Complaint of blunt trauma chest posteriology on examination no external injury was found. On auscustation air entry to both sides normal. Non under. Injury No.2 was simple in nature. Injury No.1 was declared grievous and offence under Section 325 IPC was added. In the present case, the accused was empty handed. He had not used any weapon. It is on the spur of a moment that the occurrence 2 Criminal Revision No.1373 of 2002 took place and he had twisted the leg of the complainant, which caused fracture of his knee. The occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year 1997. A long period of thirteen years is going to elapse. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has filed an affidavit of Lakhminder Singh, PPS, Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has already undergone four months and thirteen days of actual sentence out of one and a half year’s sentence awarded to him. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. However, sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The trial Court shall call upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of fine within three months after receipt of notice from the trial Court. In case the enhanced amount of fine is not deposited, no benefit of reduction in sentence shall accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 5, 2010 rps 3