IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 258 (2 cases) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. judgment dated Muktsar Sahib judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated by learned them had been convicted and sentenced as under: Offence u/s 452 IPC 326 IPC 324 IPC 341 IPC 506 IPC 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 258 (2 cases) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner in AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Both these revision petitions have been filed challenging the dated 05.05.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Muktsar Sahib, dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, had been convicted and sentenced as under: Offence u/s Sentence of Imprisonment Fine 452 IPC 3 years Rs.200/ 326 IPC 3 years Rs.200/ 324 IPC 2 years Rs.200/ 341 IPC 1 month Rs.200/ 506 IPC 1 year Rs.200/ Briefly put, the factual matrix -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY have been filed challenging the passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri filed by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2016 rendered Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, vide which each of had been convicted and sentenced as under: Fine In default of payment of fine Rs.200/- 1 month Rs.200/- 1 month Rs.200/- 1 month Rs.200/- Ten days Rs.200/- Ten days Briefly put, the factual matrix of the case is that on PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.12 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -2- CRR-206-2019 and connected cases 16.12.2012, petitioner-Jaswinder Singh gave kirpan blows on the head and right leg of Lakhwinder Singh; one unknown person also caused injuries to him on his right bicep while petitioner-Kala Singh caused injuries on left forearm and middle fingers of right hand of the complainant, with kirpan blows. When the complainant and his brother raised alarm, Baljinder Singh came at the spot and rescued them. The motive behind the occurrence is that the parties have a dispute with regard to a watercourse. Hence, an FIR was lodged and challan was presented. 3. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 452, 341, 326, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the petitioners, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused-petitioners examined 8 witnesses and also placed on record documentary evidence. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances while pleading innocence and false implication. In their defence, the accused examined 1 witness. 5. On scrutinizing the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above. 6. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.12 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -3- CRR-206-2019 and connected cases dated 05.05.2017. 7. Aggrieved accused-petitioners have preferred the present revision petitions. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submit that they do not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction and pray for reducing the sentence awarded to the period undergone i.e. 1 year, 1 month and 22 days by petitioner-Kala Singh @ Sukhmander Singh and 1 year, 1 month and 15 days by petitioner-Jaswinder Singh, on account of the fact that they are first offenders; belong to poor strata of the society; ; never misused the concession of bail and have been facing the agony of protracted trial for more than 13 years. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the present revision petitions. However, it remains uncontroverted that the petitioners are not previous convicts and there is no complaint against them of having misused the concession of bail. 10. Heard the learned counsel and perused the file. 11. Though the petitioners have not challenged the judgment of conviction, this Court still deems it appropriate to evaluate the same. The complainant (PW 1) and injured-Harjinder Singh (PW 2) have supported the prosecution version. Their ocular version is corroborated by PW 4 Dr. Rajesh Badyal and PW 8 Dr.Amit Kaur. On going through the evidence PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.12 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -4- CRR-206-2019 and connected cases on record, the prosecution case is found well established. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioners, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court, therefore, there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded and conclusion arrived at. As such, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld. 12. Regarding the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the afore-stated mitigating circumstances, the sentence of the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone, it is apposite to make a reference to the judgment of Omanakkuttan and others vs. State of Kerala, SLP (Crl.) No.4500 of 2019, decided on 20.11.2020 wherein the accused were convicted under Sections 324, 326, 308 read with Section 34 IPC and Hon’ble the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of five years to 2 years, by considering that the occurrence took place in 2002. Similarly in Arjun and Others vs. State of Haryana, CRA-S-1134-SB-2008, decided on 07.06.2023, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants, who were convicted under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 506 IPC for RI of 2 years, was reduced to the extent of already undergone, while observing that the appellants had already suffered sentence of 1 month, 13 days and 15 days respectively and faced the agony of trial for almost 17 years. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.12 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -5- CRR-206-2019 and connected cases 13. In Satish vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 580, Hon’ble the Supreme Court had observed that, “Whilst it is undoubtedly true that society has a right to lead a peaceful and fearless life, without free roaming criminals creating havoc in the lives of ordinary peace loving citizens. But equally strong is the foundation of reformative theory which propounds that a civilized society cannot be achieved only through punitive attitudes and vindictiveness; and that instead public harmony, brotherhood and mutual acceptability ought to be fostered. Thus, first time offenders ought to be liberally accorded a chance to repent their past and look forward to a bright future. [Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 112]”. 14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Keshab Naskar vs. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 9400, keeping in view that 25 long years had since elapsed from the date of the incident, never misused the privilege of post- conviction bail, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 326 IPC of 6 years was reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 14 days pre-trial and about a month and 10 days post-trial. 15. It is a settled proposition of law that each case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. 16. The object of the criminal justice system is to reform the offenders and to make them see and follow the right path. However, the PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.12 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -6- CRR-206-2019 and connected cases ancient penological approach was of custodial measure to curb crime. A balanced approach keeping in view the interests of the victim and accused and their families, release on admonition, probation, etc. is the way forward. 17. Reverting to the facts of the present case as regards the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, this Court considering the judgments referred to above and the mitigating circumstances, particularly that the petitioners are first offenders; belong to poor strata of the society; have to take care of their respectively families; undergone the substantive sentence, as noted above, suffering the ignominy of trial for the last more than 13 years; after release on bail, have not misused such concession granted to them, finds that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of the petitioners is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 18. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioners, their sentence is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine shall remain intact. 19. With the above modification in the order of sentence dated 03.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, as noted above, the revision petitions are partly allowed. 20. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file(s). 11.12.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.12 19:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.