H.S. Bhalla, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which he convicted the Appellants under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Jagtar Singh was convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -; in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellants Piara Singh and Nazar Singh were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each in default thereof, they were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. Appellants Piara Singh and Nazar Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and they undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, while Appellant Jagtar Singh @ Tari was convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each; in default thereof, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the sentence were ordered to run concurrently. However, all the Appellants were acquitted of the charge framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) AFTER arguing the case of some time and realizing that the desired relief, which he wants to seek from the Court, is not being granted in favour of the Appellants, learned Counsel prays that he does not challenge the conviction of the Appellants on merits and confines his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Learned Counsel further submits that a case under Sections 326/325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the Appellants in the year 1991. The Appellants were convicted by the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on 10.11.1994. Thereafter, they filed an appeal before this Court in the year 1994 and now a considerable period of 16 years has elapsed from the date of incident. Learned Counsel further submits that during this period, the Appellants have been facing a mental agony of the protracted trial and since then a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over their heads. Learned Counsel prays that a lenient view on the quantum of sentence be taken against the Appellants, inasmuch as, they are poor labourers by professions and they have already suffered imprisonment for a period of two months each during the trial of the case. Since the prayer made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has been restricted only on the quantum of sentence, therefore, I do not consider it necessary to recapitulate the facts again in the judgment herein since they have been narrated in the judgment of the trial Court in details. I have considered the submissions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. It is no doubt true that on account of the protracted trial, the Appellants have been facing mental agony persistently for the last 16 years and since then a sword of conviction has been hanging over their heads and in such like circumstances, in my considered view, no useful purpose would be served, except for creating disturbance in the peaceful life being led by them now, in case the Appellants are sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court after a period of more than 16 years, especially when one of the Appellants namely Piara Singh has crossed over the age of 63 years and the remaining two have crossed over 55 years age.
(3.) AFTER examining the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence was committed and also keeping in view the advanced age of the Appellants and their present circumstances, as discussed above, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a lenient view is taken against the Appellants. Accordingly, conviction against the Appellants is maintained and sentence of imprisonment imposed on the Appellants shall stand reduced to the period, which they have already undergone.;