In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1109 of 2004 Date of decision: May 05, 2009 Balbir Ram .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Sunint Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 11.2.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 458 IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on the intervening night of 20/21.5.1999, the complainant- Joginder Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant') along with father Resham Singh and brother Gulzari Lal were sleeping in the courtyard. His mother and sister were sleeping in the room. At about 1.30 a.m., he heard a noise of opening of the door, he immediately woke up and switched on the tube light and saw that the petitioner armed with kirpan was standing at the door. He tried to catch hold the petitioner but he inflicted two kirpan blows on his head and third blow on the elbow of his right arm. On hearing hue and cry, his brother and father also woke up. On seeing them, the petitioner ran away from the spot. The complainant was removed to the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur for medicolegal treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. The petitioner was arrested and completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Crl. Revision No. 1109 of 2004 -2- *** The petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Section 458 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led sufficient evidence and ultimately the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also failed. Arguments heard. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he being first offender and having already undergone four months of the substantive sentence must be extended some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1999 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone four months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by him without alteration in the sentence of fine. Bail bond and surety bond furnished by him stand discharged. May 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge