`IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 642 of 2005 Date of decision: November 23, 2010 Salwinder Singh @ Channa .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Challenged made in this petition is to the judgment dated 5.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Salwinder Singh (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 1.4.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, convicting and sentencing him as under :- U/s 325/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. U/s 323/34 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-. U/s 324 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. It is pertinent to mention here that his co-accused Khushi Ram has not preferred any revision petition against the said judgment. Though, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter, yet, keeping in view the fact that the occurrence relates to the year 1998 and this revision petition is pending in this Court for the last five years, therefore, I am left with no option but to decide the same in his absence. Record perused and the case is being decided with the able assistance of the learned State counsel. Criminal Revision No. 642 of 2005 -2- Having scrutinized the impugned judgment and the record of the case, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. The Courts below have categorically relied upon the testimonies of Major Singh complainant (PW1) and Mukhtiar Singh eye witness (PW2). They are consistent about the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. They have withstood the test of cross examination and despite their lengthy cross examination nothing material could be elicited which could shatter the prosecution version. The link evidence is complete. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected so as to render the impugned judgment as invalid, warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made out at this revisional stage. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has undergone about two months of the substantive sentence and that the occurrence relates to the year 1998, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to that of already undergone by him without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, he is further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the injured within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed. Copy of the judgment be sent to the accused as well as learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar for compliance. November 23, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge