IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 SHAMSHER SINGH ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL.

****

Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.

****

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2007 passed by the then Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala in case FIR No.1 dated 01.01.2004 under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC, registered at Police Station Tapa, District Barnala, as well as the judgment dated 20.01.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.12.2003, the petitioner had attacked the son of the complainant with Kasia and thereby caused serious injury on the left side of his head. After recording the statement of complainant, the abovementioned FIR was registered on 01.01.2004 against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested in the present case, and after completion of formal investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court for commencement of trial. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was tried in the Court and vide judgment dated 26.09.2007 passed by the then Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for three months under Section 326 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Barnala, wherein learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala vide judgment dated 20.01.2009 dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26.09.2007. Hence, the instant Revision Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 26.09.2007 as well as the judgment dated 20.01.2009 passed by the lower Appellate Court on merits, but restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 26.09.2007, to the period as already undergone by the petitioner, as he has already undergone a sentence of 05 months including remissions out of the total sentence of 03 years. He further prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 2004, hence, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court. He further submits that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was 75-80 years old and as of now, he is about 92-95 years old and as such a lenient view may be taken qua him.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner by way of filing of custody certificate of the petitioner dated 12.12.2025 and submits that the Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, he does not refute the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. The petitioner has been convicted for causing serious injury to Tarsem Singh- son of the complainant with sharp edged weapon, punishable under Section 326 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, it is apparent from a perusal of record that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was 75-80 years old and if it was so, then at present, the petitioner would be about 92-95 years old and perhaps might not be able to sustain himself and might also be suffering from old age ailments. Furthermore, the FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2004 and the petitioner has already faced the rigors of the prosecution for about two decades.

7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Man