Dalip Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

A.N. Jindal, J.—Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 29.3.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner Dalip Singh (herein referred as ''the petitioner'') convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 323 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 506 IPC. However, Appellate Court had reduced the sentence to six months u/s 323 IPC and 1� years u/s 506 IPC.

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant Ajay Bansal (herein referred as ''the complainant'') submitted a written complaint to the Illaqa Magistrate, alleging therein that on 24.4.1994, at about 4.15 p.m. he had gone to the shop of Dharambir Saini, where the petitioner met him and called him as "tau-tau". When he asked the petitioner to behave properly, then he started abusing him and also inflicted 2-3 stick blows on his person and further threatened him to kill. Since no action was taken by the police, therefore, he filed the complaint.

After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned and charged to face trial for the offences under Sections 323/506 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

Sufficient evidence was led and ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. His appeal was also dismissed with modification in the sentence in the aforementioned terms.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is a first offender and has already undergone seven months of the substantive sentence. He further prayed for taking some lenient view on the quantum of sentence.

Having examined the impugned judgment, the same sans any defect, irregularity or illegality resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner. As such, conviction recorded against the petitioner is upheld.

As regards quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1994 and the petitioner has suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings. He has already undergone seven months of the substantive sentence. As such, I deem it a fit case where some leniency could be extended to the petitioner.

Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that as already undergone by him.