H.S.BHALLA, J. - (1.) BY this common judgment, I shall be disposing of two cases, being Criminal Appeal No. 273-SB of 1995 filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence and Criminal Revision No. 752 of 1995 filed by the complainant praying for grant of compensation and enhancement of sentence qua the present appellant and further for awarding appropriate sentence to another accused namely Bhushan Kumar, who had been acquitted of the charge by the trial Court, together as they arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 22.4.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.4.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which he convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. However, both the accused were acquitted of the charges framed under Sections 302/34 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel at the very out-set has contended that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant on merits and confines his arguments only on the point of quantum of sentence. Learned counsel further submits that a case under Sections 302/34 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants in the year 1993. Both the accused, including the present appellant, were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 302/34 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the present appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 22.4.1995 of the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before this Court in the year 1995 and now a considerable period of 15 years has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence. Learned counsel further submits that during this period, the appellant has been facing a mental agony of the protracted trial and a sword of conviction has been persistently hanging over his head since then. Learned counsel further prays that a lenient view on the quantum of sentence be taken against the appellant since he is a shopkeeper by profession and he has already suffered imprisonment for some period during the trial of the case.
(3.) SINCE the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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.;