IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1072 of 2001 Date of decision: July 16, 2010 Gora Lal and others .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 7.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 30.3.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla, convicting the accused under Sections 323/324/452 IPC and sentencing them as under :- U/s 452 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. U/s 323 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months each. U/s 324IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each. The allegations, in nutshell, are that in the morning of 19.3.1997, the complainant- Jeet Ram (herein referred as 'the complainant') was washing his car in front of his house, where the accused Gora Singh, his brother-in-law Mohinder Pal Singh and Budh Ram came to him and wanted to discuss something. When the complainant refused to talk to them, they caught hold of him from his arms, however, he succeeded in running away towards the house of Surinder Pal son of Chhaju Ram. Thereafter, at about 8.00 a.m. when the complainant along with Surinder Pal was going to his house, Gora Lal armed with kirpan and Mohinder Pal Singh and Budh Ram armed with sticks came to the spot. Gora Lal raised lalkara and inflicted kirpan blow on the forehead of the complainant. The complainant raised Criminal Revision No.1072 of 2001 -2- *** hue and cry and tried to run towards his house, however, Mohinder Pal Singh inflicted stick blow on his left hand and Budh Ram inflicted stick blow on the left side of his chest. Mohinder Pal Singh inflicted another blow on his ribs. Satwinder Kaur, wife of the complainant and Surinder Pal raised alarm at which the accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered. Investigation was commenced. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared; accused were arrested; got recovered the weapons of offence pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused Gora Lal; statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned. The accused were charged under Sections 323/324/452 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Jeet Ram (PW1), Surinder Pal (PW2), Dr. Ravinder Singh Medical Officer (PW3), Paramjit Singh (PW4), Kesar Singh (PW5), HC Pritpal Singh (PW6) and ASI Sakattar Singh (PW7). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Chhaju Singh (DW1) and Paramjit Kaur (DW2). The trial ended in conviction. The appeal filed by them also failed. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, it has been urged that the accused being the first offenders must be dealt with some leniency. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out 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 1997 and the accused have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending Criminal Revision No.1072 of 2001 -3- *** against them since then. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub them as habitual offenders. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to two months without alteration in the sentence of fine. However, the accused are further burdened to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each as compensation to the complainant-injured within three months from today, failing which this petition would be treated as dismissed in toto. July 16, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge