Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2010 Date of Decision: 02.03.2010 Tinku son of Sh. Kishan Lal, aged 20 years, r/o village Beri, Tehsil and Distt. Mahendergarh. ... Revision-Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the revision-petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition is directed against the judgment of conviction, dated 14.03.09, and the order of sentence, dated 16.03.09, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rewari, vide which, it convicted the accused (now revision-petitioner), for the offence, punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 03 years, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 07 Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2010 2 days, and the judgement dated 22.09.09, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 04.02.08, at 8.00 PM, Partap Singh, complainant, boarded a passenger train, from Railway Station Garhi Hasru for Rewari. At around 9.15 PM, the complainant, de- boarded at Rewari Railway Platform, and when, he was proceeding towards his house, two young men obstructed his way and asked him to hand over all his belongings. They both were addressing each other with names i.e. Kaliya and Tinku. When the complainant refused to give his belongings, to them, Kaliya, instigated Tinku, to beat him. Thereafter, Tinku, accused, hit the complainant with a belt, on his head and robbed him of purse, containing Rs. 1500/- and some documents. They also snatched mobile phone of the complainant, model 'NOKIA 2310', having SIM No. 9813909468. During the course of investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence, was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation they were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 4. Charge under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Satpal Singh, Inspector (PW1), Surender Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW2), Partap Singh (PW3), Dr. J.K. Saini (PW4), Mahesh Kumar Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2010 3 Yadav (PW5), and, Banwari Lal, Head Constable (PW6). Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. 6. The statement of Tinku, accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence and closed the same. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal, was preferred by the appellant, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide judgement dated 22.09.09. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, did not challenge the conviction, recorded by the trial Court. Even otherwise, he could not successfully challenge the same. The trial Court, on due scrutiny of the evidence of Satpal Singh, Inspector (PW1), Surender Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW2), Partap Singh, complainant-cum-injured (PW3), Dr. J.K. Saini (PW4), Mahesh Kumar Yadav (PW5), and, Banwari Lal, Head Constable (PW6), was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same was cogent, convincing, reliable and Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2010 4 trustworthy and sufficient to hold the accused guilty. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing of consequence, was got elicited from their mouth, which may go to discredit their evidence. The trial Court, was, thus, right in recording conviction. The judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, thus, deserves to be upheld. 12. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the sentence awarded to the revision-petitioner, be reduced suitably, as he has been facing the protracted criminal proceedings since 06.02.08, i.e. for the last more than 02 years. He further submitted that during all these years, the revision-petitioner, suffered a lot of mental agony and physical pain. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. The sword of damocle's, has been hanging over the head of the revision-petitioner, for the last more than 02 years. In my considered opinion, he must have learnt the lesson, by now. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, however, submitted that the revision-petitioner, has already undergone 02 years and 18 days of sentence. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice, shall be met, in case, the substantive sentence, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 02 years, instead of rigorous imprisonment, for 03 years, awarded by the trial Court. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, to this extent, is accepted. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is partly accepted. The judgement of conviction, rendered by the trial Court, is upheld. The order of substantive sentence is modified, in the manner, that the revision-petitioner, shall undergo rigorous Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2010 5 imprisonment for 02 years, instead of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years, awarded by the trial Court. The sentence of imposition of fine, and, in default of payment thereof, shall however, remained unaltered. 14. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, is directed to comply with the judgement, in accordance with the provisions of law, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, promptly, on receipt of a copy of the judgement. 02.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) AMODH JUDGE