In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2225 of 2003 Date of decision: May 04, 2009 Karnail Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Naveen Sheoran, Advocate Admicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 16.8.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 14/16.11.2000 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.400/- under Section 324 IPC, and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1- ½ years and to pay fine of Rs.600/- under Section 326 IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 10.10.1992, at about 7.00 a.m. the complainant Pritam Singh (herein referred as 'the complainant') went to irrigate his field and the petitioner also reached there. They kept on sitting there for about an hour and at about 8.00 a.m. they started for the village. The complainant was holding his spade on his shoulder. Suddenly, the petitioner snatched his spade and inflicted two blows on the head and the third blow on the right side of his head. The complainant fell down and raised hue and cry, then, the petitioner inflicted another blow on the left side of his chest. In the meanwhile, Sher Singh father of the complainant reached there and the petitioner started abusing him also. Kala Singh brother of the complainant also reached there and on seeing him, the petitioner ran away from the spot. The complainant- injured was removed to the hospital for medicolegal treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, a case was registered and investigated. Completion of Crl. Revision No. 2225 of 2003 -2- *** the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 324/326 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 filed by him also failed. Arguments heard. Record perused. At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction it has been submitted that the petitioner being the first offender and having already undergone five 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. The judgment of conviction is shorn of any illegality much less irregularity 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 1992 and the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone five 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 04, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge