The court may reduce the quantum of sentence for first-time offenders when the litigation has been excessively protracted over several decades, treating the period already undergone as sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral)

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.30 dated 27.01.1998 was lodged in Police Station Punhana. Once the FIR was lodged, the investigation was taken up by the police, and as an outcome of abovesaid investigation, the petitioners were sent to face trial to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Punhana, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

2. The petitioners participated in the abovementioned trial, which by virtue of judgment dated 20.05.2008 culminated into their conviction. Thus, by virtue of order on quantum of sentence, dated 22.05.2008, the petitioners were awarded following sentences:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The abovementioned appeal has been decided by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Nuh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’ only. The appeal, preferred by the petitioners, did not find favour before the learned Appellate Court, and the same has been dismissed by virtue of judgment dated 20.04.2010.

4. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of conviction dated 20.05.2008 and order of sentence dated 22.05.2008, passed by the learned trial Court, and the judgment dated 20.04.2010, passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

5. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being on 27.01.1998 at the instance of ‘Akbar’. It was stated by the above-named complainant that on 27.01.1998, he was taking his cattle in Village Jaiwant and that on the way in front of the house of Sattar, Sattar came out of his house, stopped the complainant and questioned why he had allowed his goats to enter into his fields and why he (complainant) had abused Sattar’s wife. It was further alleged by the complainant that when he tried to explain that he had not abused his wife, Sattar gave lathi blows on the back of his head, on the little finger of his right hand and also on his right hand. The complainant further alleged that on seeing this, his father, who was accompanying them, tried to rescue him, but Raju, Ayub, Islam, and Farrukh joined the assailant and inflicted injuries with the help of lathies.

6. It was further alleged by the complainant that Farrukh gave lathi blow on his back and Ayub gave lathi blow on his wrist, and both the accused also pelted stones and brick, aiming his father, which hit on his forehead and nose. According to complainant, when they screamed for help, Rujdar and Juhru arrived on the spot and rescued them from the clutches of abovementioned accused.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged, and the investigation taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigat