In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1887 of 2004 Date of decision: May 14, 2009 Jasbir Singh and another ... Petitioners vs. State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G. Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 9.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners'), against the judgment dated 8/9.4.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra convicting and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325 IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 25.11.1991 at about 7.30/8.00 a.m. Avtar Singh complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant') along with his father Ram Singh was standing near the manger, in the meanwhile, Jasbir Singh and Jang Singh carrying ghopa and lathi respectively reached there. Jasbir Singh inflicted ghopa blow twice on the joint of his left hand and when he fell down Jang Singh inflicted two lathi blows on his left wrist and right arm. Jasbir Singh inflicted ghopa blow on the left hand of his father Ram Singh. On raising hue and cry, Jagtar Singh and Jaspal Singh came at the spot, at which the petitioners ran away along with their respective weapons. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the complainant dated 26.11.1991, a case FIR was registered and investigated. Completion Crl. Revision No. 1887 of 2004 -2- of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323/325/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. Sufficient evidence was led and ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. The appeal preferred by them also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, it has been urged that the petitioner being a first offenders and having already undergone more than three months of substantive sentence, deserves some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the same is shorn of any illegality much less irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction is maintained. As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1991 and the petitioners have suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. The sword of sentence remained hanging over their heads since then. They have already undergone more than three months of the substantive sentence. As such, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to them. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone by them without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of 5,000/- each as compensation to the each injured person within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for compliance. May 13, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge