Criminal Revision No.18 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.18 of 2009. Date of Decision: 3.3.2011. Sunil Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated December 4th, 2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 12th, 2007 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehabad, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 323 IPC RI for 6 months 324 IPC RI for 6 months 326 IPC RI for two years Rs.200/- RI for 1 month The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On April 17th, 2000 at about 10 p.m. in village Matana, Ram Chander-uncle of the petitioner received injuries at his hands. Ram Chander was brought to Civil Hospital, Fatehabad. On his statement, First Information Report (Exhibit PK) was registered against the petitioner. The occurrence was witnessed by Ranjit Singh Criminal Revision No.18 of 2009 2 (PW-4) and Satbir Singh. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not challenge the judgment of conviction and only prays for reduction of sentence. 4. The grounds pleaded are that, (i) the petitioner was in his 20s at the time of occurrence; (ii) he is the sole bread winner of his family; (iii) the occurrence took place on a trivial issue; (iv) the petitioner has already faced the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a period of more than 11 years; (v) he has a family to support; (vi) he was not charged or challaned in any case prior to or after registration of the present case. 5. The numerous grounds taken cumulatively are mitigating circumstance so, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioner but is inclined to reduce the sentence. It is further of the opinion that ends of justice shall be met if the petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and orders accordingly. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 3.3.2011. SN