CRR No.3061 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3061 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.02.2011 Teja Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Custody certificate handedover in Court today is taken on record. This revision petition is filed by the revisionists/petitioners against the judgment dated 9.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Sirsa, as well as judgment dated 31.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, whereby petitioners are convicted under Sections 323/325/326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: - (i) Six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the commission of offence under Section 323 IPC. (ii) Three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of CRR No.3061 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. (iii) Four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Doctor while appearing as witness has admitted that injury No.5 could be self- suffered. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana, states that petitioners/revisionists are the first time offenders and no other criminal case is pending against them. He further submits that the petitioners/accused have already undergone about six months. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to disturb the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. However, keeping in mind the statement of the Doctor and considering that accused/revisionists are first time offenders and have already undergone about six months, keeping them in jail for future period in the company of hardcore criminals would not be justified and reducing sentence to the period already undergone would be a best option if the compensation/fine is increased to Rs.30,000/- to be paid by each of the accused to the injured. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. However, fine/compensation CRR No.3061 of 2010 (O&M) -3- imposed upon the petitioners is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- each over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court, to be paid to the injured under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge February 02, 2011 R.S.