IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2195 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 20, 2011 Nihal Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 5.9.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused petitioner Nihal Singh (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 2/3.12.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323/506 IPC on both counts; and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of `200/- under Section 452 IPC. The allegations in nutshell are that Jagat Singh complainant reported to the police vide application Ex.PW1/A that on 14.12.2000, at about 10.30 p.m. the petitioner and two others entered his house, put a toy pistol on his neck and gave him beatings. The other two persons gave knife blow to his wife and fled away. A case was registered, investigated and the accused were tried and convicted accordingly. Without assailing the conviction, it was urged that the petitioner has already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence and prayed for taking lenient view on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the accused for which he was charged. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected warranting interference by this Court. As such, no Crl. Revision No. 2195 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence had taken place way back in the year 2000; he has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then; he has already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year without any alteration in the sentence of fine. September 20, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge