Crl.Rev.No. 2198 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No. 2198 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 25.09.2009 Balwant Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mrs. G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. A.S.Jattana, Advocate, for the complainant. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 2198 of 2009 and 2112 of 2009 as they arise out of the same incident and common judgment/order of sentence passed against the petitioners therein. On an FIR dated 20.7.1999 registered on the basis of statement of the complainant Sadhu Singh, challan was presented against the accused- petitioners and charges were framed against them under Sections 392, 394 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide his judgment and order dated 9.4.2008 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners under Section 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Under Section 323 IPC, the accused-petitioners were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months each and to pay Crl.Rev.No. 2198 of 2009 2 fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each and under Section 506 IPC, all of them were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each and to pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each. All the sentences were however, ordered to run concurrently. On an appeal preferred by the petitioners, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 13.7.2009 has dismissed their appeal upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court. Counsel for the petitioners did not press the present petition on merits and had only prayed for interference by this Court on the question of quantum of sentence, with a further prayer that the injured may be monetarily compensated. On this limited plea of the counsel for the petitioners, notice was issued to the State. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are facing the agony of protracted trial/ appeal for the last more than 10 years. It is further his submission that during this period, no other complaint has been lodged against the petitioners nor have they been convicted for any other offence(s). It is further his submission that the petitioners are not previous convicts and are having families to support and, therefore, prays that their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them and in lieu thereof, some amount of compensation may be granted to the injured. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the Crl.Rev.No. 2198 of 2009 3 records of the case. Undisputedly, the present petitioners are facing the agony of protracted trial/appeal for the last more than 10 years and there is nothing on the record to suggest that they have repeated the offence after having been released on bail or they are previous convicts. The petitioners have families to support as they are the bread-winners. Thus, the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence awarded to petitioners under Sections 323 and 506 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone, subject to their paying a compensation of Rs.7000/- each to the injured, Sadhu Singh, within a period of three months. It is ordered accordingly. The above reduction in sentence shall come into effect from the date of deposit of the amount of compensation by the petitioners, as assessed above. With the modification in the sentence, the present revision petitions, i.e., Criminal Revision Nos. 2198 of 2009 and 2112 of 2009 stand disposed of. September 25, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Crl.Rev.No. 2198 of 2009 4