IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Appeal No. 1388-SB of 2002 Date of Decision : 16.11.2010. Garib Singh & another ......Appellants Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent 2. Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2003 Date of Decision : 16.11.2010. Sukhdip Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Sukhjinder Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. H.S.Bhullar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mrs. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate, for Mr. P.S.Brar, Advocate, for the Revisionist. NAWAB SINGH J. This judgment would dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1388-SB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2003 as they have been filed against the judgment dated September 5th, 2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. Appellants Garib Singh and Balbir Singh were convicted for the offences under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2003 has been filed against the acquittal of Sukhjinder Singh, respondent No.1 and for enhancement of sentence imposed upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 while convicts have preferred the appeal Criminal Appeal No. 1388-SB of 2002 2 No. 1388-SB of 2002 against their conviction and sentence. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. 3. Admittedly, Balbir Singh did not cause any injury to Sukhdeep Singh-injured (PW-1). The role attributed to him was that he caught hold of Sukhdeep Singh and Garib Singh caused datar blow which hit on the wrist of Sukhdeep Singh. The occurrence took place due to the election of Gram Panchayat. 4. It calls for pointed notice that the appellants have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 15 years, they are not previous convicts nor have indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case and are the only bread earners of their respective families. They are in their late 60s. 5. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the appellants but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. Criminal Appeal No. 1388-SB of 2002 is accepted partly as indicated above. 5. As regards the acquittal of Sukhjinder Singh, there is no infirmity in the well reasoned judgment passed by the Court below. Consequently, the Criminal revision No.1 of 2003 is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 16.11.2010. som