IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 376 of 1998 Date of Decision : July 22, 2010 Baldev Ram and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. Mr. P.S.Grewal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioners were tried for the offences under Sections 326/324/34 IPC on the allegations that on 16.7.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. two of them, namely, Piara Ram and Shinder Ram while armed with a gandasa each caused injuries to complainant-Jarnail Ram (Singh) PW2 and at that time Baldev Ram-petitioner though armed with a dang had raised a lalkara for teaching a lesson to the complainant for possessing one killa extra land. Vide judgment and order dated 27.3.1996 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul convicted Piara Ram-petitioner of the offence under Section 326 IPC and Baldev Ram and Shinder Ram- petitioners for the offences under Sections 326/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Crl. Revision No. 376 of 1998 -2- Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Shinder Ram-petitioner was convicted under Section 324 IPC whereas Baldev Ram and Piara Ram-petitioners were convicted under Sections 324/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 21.3.1998. The petitioners then knocked the doors of this Court by filing the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that because of the overwhelming evidence available on the file, he is not in a position to challenge the conviction of the petitioners. However, he has submitted that the occurrence in question had taken place more than seventeen years ago and ever since then the petitioners have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution. The petitioners are not previous convicts. They have already undergone a substantial portion of their sentence and, therefore, their substantive sentences of imprisonment be reduced to that already undergone by them. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that all the petitioners had taken active part in the occurrence in which Jarnail Ram had received injuries. Crl. Revision No. 376 of 1998 -3- As per the custody certificates already placed on record by learned State counsel, Baldev Ram-petitioner has undergone one month and thirteen days in jail whereas Piara Ram-petitioner had spent a period of three months and twenty seven days in jail before he was released on bail. In the case of Shinder Ram-petitioner the said period was two months and sixteen days. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, once again, so as to undergo their remaining sentences. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners for the various offences is maintained. Their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. However, the fine of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon the petitioners for the offences under Sections 326 and 326/34 IPC is enhanced by Rs.5,000/-, which be deposited by them with the trial Court within three months from today, failing which they shall be required to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentence of fine imposed upon the petitioners for the offences under Sections 324 and 324/34 IPC alongwith its default clause is maintained. Crl. Revision No. 376 of 1998 -4- But for the modification in the quantum of sentence of imprisonment and fine, as indicated above, the revision fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 22, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1