IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1710 of 2004 Date of Decision 04.10.2010 Sandeep ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.D.R.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated 26.07.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 12/13.08.2003, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 377 read with Section 511 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Sections 323 and 342 IPC. Allegations against the petitioner are that on 12.04.1997 he committed un-natural offence with the boy namely Tinku. When he started crying, the petitioner ran away. FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. On trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, some leniency on the quantum of sentence has been sought. Criminal Revision No.1710 of 2004 -2- Even otherwise, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was found or detected in the conduct of trial or procedure, which may result into miscarriage of justice or failure of justice, therefore, the findings returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1997. The sword of sentence remained hanging over his head since then. He has already undergone more than five months of the substantive sentence. Under these peculiar circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to reduce the sentence to some extent. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence,which is reduced to one year and six months without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the order be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 04.10.2010 mamta-II