JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Sadhu Singh, Gurdev Singh and Raghubir Singh, the petitioners-herein alongwith Joga Singh and Harjinder Singh alias Billa were booked in a case FIR No. 180 dated 9.9.1985, under Sections 326/324/323/34 Indian Penal Code, registered at police station Mahilpur. Joga Singh and Harjinder Singh stood acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated November 24, 1988, whereas the present petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under : Sadhu Singh U/S 326/34 Indian Penal Code To undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for six months. U/S 324 Indian Penal Code RI for eight months. U/S 323 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. Gurdev Singh U/S 326 Indian Penal Code RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-, in default to suffer further RI for six months. U/S 324 Indian Penal Code RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of which to suffer further RI for six months. U/S 323 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. Raghubir Singh U/S 326/34 Indian Penal Code RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer further RI for 3 months. U/S 324/34 Indian Penal Code RI for six months. U/S 323 Indian Penal Code RI for 3 months. They preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 10.4.1989 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Hence this revision. 2. It would be pertinent to mention here that a cross case was also registered against Avtar Singh, Harbans Singh, Gurbux Singh and Talwan Singh. However, they were acquitted by the trial Court by a separate judgment dated 24.11.1988. 3. Sadhu Singh, the petitioner herein has also filed a separate Criminal Revision (No. 381 of 1989) against their acquittal. However, the State of Punjab has not preferred any appeal against the said order of acquittal. 4. Another Criminal Revision (No. 527 of 1989) has also been filed by Harbans Singh complainant against the present petitioners for enhancement of the sentence. However, I shall be dealing with the aforesaid two revision petitions separately. The prosecution story in brief runs thus : 5. The occurrence is of 3.9.1985. 4. Another Criminal Revision (No. 527 of 1989) has also been filed by Harbans Singh complainant against the present petitioners for enhancement of the sentence. However, I shall be dealing with the aforesaid two revision petitions separately. The prosecution story in brief runs thus : 5. The occurrence is of 3.9.1985. There was a dispute regarding canal water course between both the sides. On an application moved on this behalf, the police visited the spot in the presence of both the sides. After the police went back, Tarsem Singh, his father Rakha Singh stayed in the field in order to cut the fodder. Lachhman Singh and Gurbux Singh were coming to the village. When they reached in front of the outer gate of the house, they noticed Sadhu Singh and his sons namely, Surinder Pal Singh, Harjinder Singh alias Billa and Joga Singh. Sadhu Singh gave a lalkara that the complainant side be dashed to ground, upon which Avtar Singh said that they could do any act they wanted. It is then alleged that Sadhu Singh exhorted his sons to catch hold of Avtar Singh and teach him a lesson. On this Chhinda, Joga Singh and Harjinder Singh caught hold of Avtar Singh PW3 and Sadhu Singh petitioner started giving him fist blows, which hit him on the left eye and neck. He further inflicted gatra (small kirpan) blow on the back of Avtar Singh, besides some other blows. Avtar Singh raised an alarm which attracted Gurdev Singh and Raghubir Singh. Gurdev Singh was armed with a sua and Raghubir Singh was armed with a Sota. Gurdev Singh inflicted a Sua blow from its pointed side, hitting Gurbux Singh on his face, as a result of which one of his teeth was extracted and it also pierced into his tongue. Raghubir Singh also gave three dang blows on the left flank, back and neck of Gurbux Singh. On raising hue and cry, Lachhman Singh reached the spot and rescued the injured. The accused ran away from the spot. 6. After completion of investigation, the accused were challaned and they were charged under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. 7. On raising hue and cry, Lachhman Singh reached the spot and rescued the injured. The accused ran away from the spot. 6. After completion of investigation, the accused were challaned and they were charged under Sections 326/324/323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. 7. The stand taken by the petitioners was that in fact Gurbux Singh, Avtar Singh, Talwan Singh and Harbans Singh caused injuries to Sadhu Singh with kick and fist blows, as a result of which his one tooth was broken; they however, caused injuries to the complainant party; Surinder Singh gave injuries to the complainant party to save Sadhu Singh. 8. In their defence, the petitioners examined Dr. Vijay Kumar Sethi (DW-1) and Sadhu Singh (DW-2). 9. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as already stated above. 10. I have heard Mr. H.S. Gill, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. R.K. Rakkar, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State of Punjab. However, none appeared for the complainant. I have also perused the entire record minutely. 11. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section 326 Indian Penal Code is not made out in this case and at the most it would fall within the ambit of Section 324 Indian Penal Code, 12. Mr. Gill has pointed out that Dr. Dilbagh Rai (PW1) has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the tooth was not produced before him and as such the possibility of the tooth having been extracted by the blunt weapon could not be ruled out. He thus contends that there is no categorical opinion of the doctor to the effect that the tooth injury was possible by a sharp pointed weapon (sua) and thus the case would not fall within the mischief of Section 326 Indian Penal Code. 13. In the alternative, Mr. Gill prays for leniency towards the quantum of sentence submitting that the appellants have already faced the agony of protracted trial for about 18 years. 14. The learned State counsel has refuted the arguments advanced by Mr. 13. In the alternative, Mr. Gill prays for leniency towards the quantum of sentence submitting that the appellants have already faced the agony of protracted trial for about 18 years. 14. The learned State counsel has refuted the arguments advanced by Mr. Gill and has submitted that the present case falls within the mischief of Section 326 Indian Penal Code as injury No. 2 received by Gurbax Singh is by a sharp pointed weapon (Sua) and that the petitioners do not deserve any leniency on the count of sentence as well because they all have inflicted injuries to the complainant side. 15. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the first submission of Mr. Gill deserves to be repelled. 16. Dr. Dilbagh Rai (PW-1), who examine Gurbax Singh on 3.9.1985, found the following injuries on his person : 1. There was a stab (punctured) wound on the left side of the moustache 1.5 cm above outer aspect of upper lip. The margins of the wound are inverted parallel in the centre while the two ends join at the periphery of the wound, 1.5 cm x 1 cm wide on probing the wound is continue on the inner surface of the mouth i.e. 2 cm deep (through and through) exit of the wound is 1.25 cm x 1 cm wide with clear cut margins. Bleeding on touch. Margins of the exit were averted. 2. The second pre-molar tooth of the left upper jaw was missing. There was a V shape cavity bleeding frequently on touch. Clotted blood was present in the cavity on exploration. The cavity is 2 cms deep 1.25 cm long x 1.25 cm wide. The camine was also bleeding and shaky. 3. The tongue was bleeding on the left side 2 cm away from tip, incised wound 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm. 4. There was an abrasion on the front of the manbrium reddish in colour 2 cm x 1 cm. 5. Red abrasion on the right side of the front of chest at the levl of 2nd inter-costal space 3 cm x 1 cm. 6. Patient complained of pain on the outer aspect of left side of the chest. 17. From a persual of the aforesaid injuries, it is clear that injury Nos. 5. Red abrasion on the right side of the front of chest at the levl of 2nd inter-costal space 3 cm x 1 cm. 6. Patient complained of pain on the outer aspect of left side of the chest. 17. From a persual of the aforesaid injuries, it is clear that injury Nos. 1 to 3 are on the left side of the face covering the upper lip and the tongue. Injury No. 2 cannot be segregated from injuries Nos. 1 and 3. No doubt this injury could be possible by one blow as deposed by Dr. Dilbagh Rai (PW1), but his opinion that the possibility of this injury by a sharp blunt weapon cannot be ruled out, in my view is a hypothetical statement because the basis of opinion founded by the doctor is non-production of the tooth. This cannot be a ground at all. The Court cannot be a silent spectator to the injuries and cannot always accept the medical opinion as it is. Injury No. 2 indicates second pre-molar tooth of left upper jaw was missing. There was V-shape cavity, bleeding frequently on touch. Injury No. 3 indicates that even the tongue was bleeding. Injury No. 1 was a punctured woundd on the left side of the moustache. When all these three injuries are seen collectively and minutely, the only conclusion is that the same were caused by a sharp pointed weapon (Sua), as alleged by the prosecution, may be by one blow. Thus, by no stretch of imagination injury No. 2 would fall within the ambit of Section 324 Indian Penal Code. Hence the conviction of Gurdev Singh under Section 326 Indian Penal Code substantively as recorded by the learned trial Court is liable to be maintained. Similarly, the conviction of the other petitioners under Section 326 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code also deserves to be upheld. 18. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the learned trial Court is affirmed. 19. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been brought to my notice that the petitioners have already undergone sentence of about one month, which includes the period during trial and after the conviction was maintained by the lower Appellate Court till they got bail from this Court. The occurrence relates to the year 1985. 19. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it has been brought to my notice that the petitioners have already undergone sentence of about one month, which includes the period during trial and after the conviction was maintained by the lower Appellate Court till they got bail from this Court. The occurrence relates to the year 1985. The petitioners have undergone the agony of protracted trial for the last about 18 years. The present revision is also pending for the last about 14 years. 20. Another material aspect of the matter is that from the side of the petitioners, Sadhu Singh has also received six injuries in the occurrence, as deposed by Dr. Vijay Kumar Sethi (DW-1), out of which one injury was declared as grievous. A cross case was registered against the complainant side, though it ended into acquittal but the fact remains that Sadhu Singh petitioner was also injured in the instant occurrence. 21. Yet another fact which cannot be lost sight of is that Tarsem Singh, who has otherwise not been arrayed as an accused by the complainant side, had also received injuries in this occurrence. The purpose of criminal law justice is to bring peace, discipline and harmony in the society. An opportunity has also to be given to an erring individual to reform himself. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 161 have observed as under :- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the Court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case; a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided again within the permissible limits of law." 22. In a recent judgment rendered in Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003(3) RCR(Crl.) 450 upholding the conviction under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, this Court while relying upon Bohar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR 387 has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (viz. two months). While enhancing the fine as the accused had already faced the agony of protracted trial for 14 years. In the instant case, the petitioners have suffered even more period i.e. 18 years. The additional factor for showing leniency is that some persons from the accused side have also suffered injuries. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- already awarded by the trial Court qua Gurdev singh petitioner is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by him within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In default of payment of fine, Gurdev Singh shall undergo the whole of the substantive sentence as imposed by the trial Court. In case the enhanced amount of Rs. 4600/- is deposited (i.e. total amount of Rs. 5,000/- minus Rs. 400/- already imposed), it shall be disbursed to injured Gurbax Singh without any delay by the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, Gurdev Singh shall undergo the whole of the substantive sentence as imposed by the trial Court. In case the enhanced amount of Rs. 4600/- is deposited (i.e. total amount of Rs. 5,000/- minus Rs. 400/- already imposed), it shall be disbursed to injured Gurbax Singh without any delay by the trial Court. Rest of the amount of fine awarded on other counts shall remain intact with the State. With the modification in sentence as indicated above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.