AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 192 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner and rightly too in view of the statement of the injured witness Sarup Singh whose statement has also been corroborated by the medical evidence. He has simply prayed that leniency may be shown to the petitioner in the matter of sentence as he is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings since 31.3.1988 when the criminal case was registered against him and his co-accused who have already been released on probation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no serious objection to the reduction of sentence of the petitioner.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is suffering the vagaries of the criminal Proceedings for the last 19 years, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the petitioner is hereby reduced to six months u/s 325 IPC which shall run concurrently with the sentences already awarded under Sections 323/34 IPC. The imposition of fine is not disturbed.
With this modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of.