CRR No.2869 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2869 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2011 Amarjeet Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. D.S. Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Hooda, Addl. A.G., 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) Affidavit of Jagjit Singh, Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal, filed in Court today is taken on record. Petitioner was found guilty under Sections 323, 325 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for committing offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years CRR No.2869 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and to pay a fine of Rs.6000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, in appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, has set aside the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, sentence under Sections 323 and 326 IPC has been affirmed. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for about one year and ten months during the pendency of this case and he has suffered a lot of embarrassment owing to the pendency of this criminal case. Mr. S.K. Hooda, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The sword of damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioner for all times to come. He has been suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against him. The petitioner has already undergone for about one year and ten months. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of this case while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by him in this case. However, fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one CRR No.2869 of 2010 (O&M) -3- month from today, with the Trial Court to be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge January 20, 2011 R.S.