Criminal Revision No.634 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.634 of 2006 Date of Decision : 21.3..2011 Kashmir Singh & others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. A.P.S.Mann, Advocate, for Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners, Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG Punjab, for the respondent-State. Gurmit Singh – complainant in person with Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan Singh Rai, Advocate. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Kashmir Singh, Lekh Raj and Devi Lal – petitioners were tried by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar. They were convicted under Sections 326, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code by judgment dated May 5th, 2005. They preferred an appeal. By judgment dated March 13th, 2006, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar partly accepted their appeal and while upholding their conviction, reduced their sentence as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default Petitioner – Kashmir Singh u/S 326 IPC RI for 1year ` 1000/- RI for 15 days u/S 323/34 IPC RI for 3 months Petitioner – Lekh Raj u/S 326/34 IPC RI for 1year ` 1000/- RI for 15 days Criminal Revision No.634 of 2006 2 .. u/S 323/34 IPC RI for 3 months Petitioner – Devi Lal u/S 326/34 IPC RI for 1year ` 1000/- RI for 15 days u/S 323 IPC RI for 3 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners do not challenge the judgment of conviction and only pray for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by them. The grounds pleaded are that, (i) the occurrence took place in the year 2000; (ii) the petitioners are in their 60s/70s; (iii). during the pendency of revision, parties also entered into a compromise by compromise deed dated March 15th, 2011 (Annexure P/1); (iv). they are residing in the same village; (v) the petitioners have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 11 years; (vi). they are neither previous convict nor have they indulged in any criminal activity before or after registration of this case; and (vii) they have families to support. 3. In Surendra Nath Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 683, the offence was committed in the year 1997. Accused were convicted under Section 326 IPC. The parties settled their dispute outside the Court. Hon`ble Supreme Court after considering the fact that the parties had settled their dispute outside the Court and that 10 years had elapsed, reduced the sentence of the accused to already undergone by them. 4. In Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1, Hon`ble Supreme of India reduced the sentence already undergone by the appellant, who was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years on account of compromise having been effected between the parties during the pendency of the appeal before the Hon`ble Supreme Court. 5. As a result, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone Criminal Revision No.634 of 2006 3 .. by them. 6. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 21.3.2011. som