Criminal Revision No.2177 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2177 of 2005 Date of Decision: 03.02.2011. Gurpartap Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Punjab. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated November 17th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 19th, 2003 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa, whereby, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under: Offence U/S Sentence Fine In default Accused Gurpartap Singh 325 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.200/- RI for 2 month 323/34 IPC RI for 3 months Rs.100/- RI for 15 days Accused Jasvir Singh and Hardip Singh (each) 325/34 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.200/- RI for 2 month 323/34 IPC RI for 3 months Rs.100/- RI for 15 days The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that he does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits and confines his arguments only regarding quantum of sentence on the grounds that (i). Gurpartap Singh's sister was Criminal Revision No.2177 of 2005 2 .. married with Buta Singh-injured-complainant but matrimonial dispute arose between them; (ii). Hardeep Singh and Jasvir Singh, petitioners No.2 and 3 respectively, were not attributed any injury (iii) The occurrence took place in the year 1997 on account of heat of passion as the sister of Gurpartap Singh-petitioner No.1 was not being treated well by Buta Singh so much so divorce petition was also filed by Buta Singh against his wife viz., sister of Gurpartap Singh (iv). The petitioners have undergone actual sentence of 1 month and 10 days; (v). They have faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of 12 years and (vii) They are not previous convicts. 3. The aforesaid circumstances are of mitigating nature and justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. 4. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 03.02.2011 som