KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) MITHOO Singh son of Nand Singh and his co- accused Sadha Singh son of Fateh Singh, Balwinder Singh son of Shital Singh, Gardaur Singh alias Kala Daint son of Gurbax Singh were named as accused in case FIR No. 24 dated 5.5.1992 registered at Police Station Bareta, under Sections 452, 460 & 34 IPC. Out of these four accused Balwinder Singh and Gardaur Singh died during the trial. Mithoo Singh and Sadha Singh were convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, under Section 460 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(2.) AS per the record Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate, is appearing as Amicus Curiae for Mithoo Singh, Sadha Singh has not filed appeal. Learned counsel appearing for appellant at the outset has stated that Mithoo Singh appellant was arrested on 17.6.1992 and was released on bail on 19.9.1992 as challan was not filed within the statutory period of 90 days, however, the bail bonds could only be furnished on 30.9.1992 and hence the appellant had undergone three months and 13 days as under trial. It has been further contended before me that appellant was taken into custody by the trial Court on the date of judgment i.e. 19.2.1997 and thereafter he has been granted bail by this Court on 29.1.2001 and hence he has undergone three years, one month and 11 days after his conviction and thus, in all appellant has undergone three years, four months and 24 days out of his actual sentence of seven years apart from the remissions. Learned counsel for the appellant has also brought into my notice certificate Ex.D1, which is a Handicap Certificate to show that the appellant suffer from 70% handicap and permanent disability as his left arm has been amputated. He has also brought into my notice observations of the trial Court which are recorded in para 16 of the judgment wherein it has been held that "Mithoo Singh is handicapped from left hand and not from right hand". Probably this certificate was relied to show that the appellant could not have caused injuries as he is deprived of left arm and the learned trial Judge had held that "his right arm is fully developed and is in working condition. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that 70% disability and handicap may be taken as mitigating circumstance for reduction of the sentence.
(3.) AT this stage I have to weigh whether because of protracted trial, as the occurrence took place on 5.5.1992, coupled with the fact that the appellant suffered from 70% disability and his left arm is amputated and has undergone more than three years and four months, he is entitled to reduction in sentence to already undergone or not.;