-1- Criminal Revision No.1120 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1120 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 10, 2010. Suraj Bhan ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap Singh Gill, Additional Advocate General,Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Petitioner Suraj Bhan was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') for causing injuries to -2- Criminal Revision No.1120 of 2003. complainant Smt. Birhami. For the former offence, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the latter offence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence this revision petition. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, comprehending that the case of the prosecution against the petitioner stood proved beyond all reasonable doubts, did not challenge the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court, but prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence. In this case, the petitioner has already undergone about three months' incarceration. The incident relates to February, 1995. After protracted trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in March, 2001. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the lower appellate Court in May, 2003. The Sword of Damocles has, thus, remained hanging over the head of the petitioner for about fifteen years. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for three months, I think no useful purpose will be served in sending him to prison again at this stage and ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of his maximum rigorous imprisonment i.e one year under Sections 324 and 323 of the Code is reduced to the period -3- Criminal Revision No.1120 of 2003. already undergone by him. I order accordingly. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 324 and 323 of the Code, the impugned sentence order stands modified to the extent indicated above. With the above modification in the sentence order, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. February 10, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE