Criminal Revision No.825 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.825 of 2001 Date of Decision 23.07.2010 Vichar Singh and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Meenakshi Poswal, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for the petitioners. None for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This order disposes of the present petition against the judgment dated 22.02.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal, preferred by the petitioners, against the judgment dated 14.08.2000, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, convicting and sentencing them as under:- Name of accused Offence Sentence Vichar Singh 323/34 IPC R.I. for a period of three months. 324/34 IPC R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. 325 IPC R.I. for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Nachhattar Singh 323 IPC R.I. for a period of three months 324/34 IPC R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. 323 IPC R.I. for a period of three months. 325/34 IPC R.I. for a period of one Criminal Revision No.825 of 2001 2 year and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The allegations against the petitioners are that on 21.06.1996, they armed with Kirpan and sticks caused injuries to Harkewal Singh and Harwinder Singh. They were charged, tried and ultimately convicted and sentenced accordingly. Their appeal also failed. While facing difficulty to make out a case for disturbing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Heard, on scrutiny, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected which may render the judgment as invalid. Even otherwise, the scope of interference at this revisional stage is very limited in nature. As such, findings returned by both the Courts below stand affirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1996. The petitioners have already suffered a lot of agony on account of the protracted proceedings pending in the Courts for the last 14 years. They have already undergone about five months of the substantive sentence and the injured could be compensated, therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to send them to imprisonment at this stage. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to that of already undergone without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the petitioners are ordered to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000/- each) as compensation before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, within three months which would be paid to the injured Harkewal Singh and Harwinder Singh in equal shares, failing which they would be ready to serve remaining part of sentence. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 23.07.2010 mamta-II