Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Revision No. 420 of 2005 has been filed by Kamaljit Singh and Himmat Kumar both sons of Daya Krishan. They were tried by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib in case FIR No. 33 dated 9.5.1995 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, 447 427, 325 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sirhind. They were convicted and sentenced as under: Convict Kamaljit Singh Sr. Offence Under R/I Fine In default of No. fine undergo further S/I 1 326 IPC 2 1/2 years Rs. 3,000/Two months 2 324 IPC 1 year Rs. 1,000/One month 3 323 IPC 6 months Rs. 500/15 days 4 324 read with Rs. 300/15 days Section 34 IPC 6 months 5 323 read with Rs. 200/7 days Section 34 IPC 3 months Convict Himmar Kumar Sr. Offence Under R/I Fine In default of No. fine undergo further S/I 1 326/34 IPC 1 1/2 years Rs. 1,000/One month 2 323 IPC 6 months Rs. 500/15 days 3 324/34 IPC 6 months Rs. 500/15 days 4 323/34 IPC 3 months Rs. 200/15 days
(2.) AGGRIEVED against the conviction and sentence, they filed appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and it was heard and disposed of by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment dated 6.2.2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at a conclusion that conviction of appellant Kamaljit Singh under Section 326 and appellant Himmat Kumar under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained as injured Sant Ram was not examined. There was no challenge to this finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.
(3.) RELYING upon the evidence of PW. 1 Gurbachan Singh and PW.6 Kaka Singh, the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge held that Kamaljit has committed an offence under Section 324 IPC and appellant Himmat Kumar with the aid of Section 324 IPC and modified the sentence. It will be apposite here to reproduce para 11 of the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge: 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants then argued on the point of sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1995. The appellants have been facing trial since then. Near about a decade has rolled by since when the appellants have been put on trial in this case. So considering the circumstances of the case, this Court reduces the sentence of appellant Kamaljit Singh to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/ - is maintained and the sentence of Himmat Kumar is reduced to four months rigorous imprisonment under Section 324/34 IPC and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/ - is maintained and sentence in default of payment of fine is also maintained as recorded by the Court below. The sentence of Kamaljit Singh is reduced to three months under Section 323 IPC and sentence of fine of Rs. 500/ - is maintained and sentence of Himmat Kumar is reduced to three months under Section 323 IPC and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/ - is maintained. The sentence of Kamaljit under Section 323/34 IPC for three months is maintained and the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/ - is also maintained and the sentence of Himmat Kumar for the offence under Section 323 IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment is maintained and the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/ - upon him is also maintained and the sentences of imprisonments in default of payment of fine are also maintained. Except the reduction of the sentences in the imprisonments as referred above and the acceptance of the appeal of the appellants for the offence under Section 326 IPC, there is no other merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The period of detention, if any, already undergone by the appellants during the course of investigation and trial of the case be set off. All the sentences of imprisonments shall run concurrently. Appellants be sent to jail to serve out their sentences of imprisonments. Trial Court record be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to record room.;