IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2254 of 2003 Date of decision: September 20, 2010 Ram Niwas .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J. Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 06.09.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 24.09.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 326 IPC Factual matrix of the case is that on 16.10.1991, Rajmal, an employee of the Market Committee, Barwala was present in a room adjacent to the office of Market Committee, Barwala. At about 09:00 PM, Ram Niwas, Chowkidar of the Market Committee, Barwala came. Rajmal asked him to go out as he was in inebriated condition but he (Ram Niwas) did not agree, rather, he threatened him with dire consequences. In the meanwhile, he lifted a Gandasi lying near the drums and inflicted a blow on the head of Rajmal. Randhir Singh, brother of Rajmal also reached the spot. The accused fled away from the scene. Rajmal was immediately shifted to Janta Criminal Revision No.2254 of 2003 -2- Hospital, Barwala by Mange Ram. Medical Officer, Janta Hospital referred Rajmal to Civil Hospital, Barwala and also informed the police. Rajender Singh, Sub Inspector/S.H.O. reached the hospital, recorded the statement (Ex.PA) of Rajmal and the same was sent to the Police Station, Barwala. On the basis of which, formal First Information Report Ex.PA/1 was registered and investigated. The completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged under Sections 326 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Raj Mal (PW1), Randhir (PW2), Sujan Singh (PW3), Rajender Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW4) and Dr. Jitender (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. The appeal filed by him also failed. At the very outset, without assailing the findings of conviction, learned counsel has submitted that they being the first offenders and having already undergone more than one year and three 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. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, findings of fact returned by both the courts below regarding the guilt of the accused are maintained. Criminal Revision No.2254 of 2003 -3- Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1991 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone more than one year and three 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 them. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year and six months without alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, for compliance. September 20, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) Gagan Judge