SURJIT SINGH Vs. NAHARA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The present appeals are by the informant against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused). Law was set into motion by the appellant alleging that while he was spraying his paddy crop in his field, the accused had fired several shots resulting in major or minor injuries to him. The accused was charged for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the IPC) and S. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Arms Act). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala found the accused guilty of offence punishable under S. 326, I.P.C. and S. 27 of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation for the offence relatable to S. 326, I.P.C. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of the offences under the Arms Act. The matter was carried in appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the accused. The appellant also filed a criminal revision under S. 397 read with S. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). Appeal was numbered as Crl. A.No. 81-SB of 1992 and the criminal revision was numbered as Crl. Revn. No. 580 of 1992. Both the appeal and the revision have been disposed of by the common judgment which is impugned in the present appeals. The High Court while upholding the conviction reduced the sentence to the period of custodial sentence already undergone. The fine was, however, enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-.

(3.) In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that looking at the nature of the injuries sustained, the High Court should have interfered with the sentence, more particularly when the accused had undergone only 63 days of custodial sentence. Moreover, the High Court has not indicated any reason to justify the reduction of custodial sentence.