1992 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 29th March, 1992. Petitioner was tried under section 325, P.P.C. for having caused injuries on 1‑7‑1986 to Nabi Bakhsh by A.C./M.I.C., Jampur. He was convicted vide judgment dated 30‑4‑1990 by the said Court and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months plus to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof to undergo S.I. for one month.

2. He filed appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial Magistrate vide judgment, dated 21‑6‑1990 observing that since the Radiologist had not been examined there was no positive proof that the injury was of a grievous nature. The case was placed before the same Magistrate. After recording the statement of a, doctor and X‑Ray Technician, he passed fresh judgment, dated 30‑9‑1990 whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 325, P.P.C. and sentenced to R.I.‑for two years plus to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 in default whereof to undergo S.I. for six months. The appeal filed by him before the Sessions Judge was dismissed. He has challenged the orders of the lower Courts by way of revision petition.

3. Revision petition was admitted only to consider the quantum 'of sentence. Actually, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself had sought not to press the petition on merits and had prayed for reduction in the sentence.

4. The occurrence had taken place about four years back. The petitioner has undergone rigours of trial twice. He had to be before the appellate Court twice in the earlier round. He was only sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months plus to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in the first round. The offence remained the same in the second round of trial as well. In the circumstances, gap between the sentences awarded by the same trial Magistrate for the same offence is unbridgeable. The same has, therefore, got to be reduced.

5. Keeping in view the period since when the case is pending and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone rigours of the trial twice and faced the appellate Court also twice and has also by this time undergone about four months' rigorous imprisonment, I feel the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his sentence of imprisonment be reduced to that of already undergone and the sentence of fine only be allowed to stand, would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of imprisonment is, therefore, reduced to already undergone. He shall, however, pay the fine of Rs.2,000 in default whereof he shall suffer R.I. for six months. A sum of Rs.1,000 out of the fine, on recovery, shall be paid as compensation to the injured P.W. N.H.Q./L‑18/L Sentence reduced.