Crl. Revision No. 1639 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1639 of 2003 Date of decision: August 25, 2010 Amar Singh and another .....PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Krishan Singh, Advocate Mr Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana T.P.S .MANN,J. (Oral): The petitioners, alongwith Sukha Singh and Bhajan Singh were tried for offences under Sections 323/324/326/34 IPC on the allegations that on 12.1.1993 at about 4.00 PM, they had caused injuries to complainant-Balwinder Singh. Vide judgment dated 7.1.2000, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, acquitted Sukha Singh and Bhajan Singh, co-accused of the petitioners, of the charges against them. The petitioners were held guilty under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and vide order dated 10.1.2000, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed an appeal, but the same was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Crl. Revision No. 1639 of 2003 -2- Judge, Kaithal on 25.7.2003. Hence, the present revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the conviction of his clients for the offence under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. However, he has submitted that both the petitioners have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last more than 17½ years. According to the prosecution, complainant-Balwinder Singh had received only one injury which was on his left hand, as a result of which, he suffered a fracture of base of second metacarpal bone. On the side of the petitioners, their co-accused Sukha Singh had received six injuries on his person, one of which was on his head, though it was declared simple in nature. Injury No.3 was declared grievous as a fracture of shaft of ulna bone was detected during x-ray examination. Both the petitioners were taken into custody on 25.7.2003, when their appeal was dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court. It was only on 19.12.2003 that they were granted the concession of bail. Thus, they have already spent a period of about five months in jail as convicts. Under these circumstances, the substantive sentences of imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to that already undergone by them. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners were attributed causing of grievous injury on the person of complainant-Balwinder Singh. However, he has produced custody certificates, as per which, Amar Singh- petitioner has served an actual sentence of four months and twenty nine days, whereas in the case of Darshan Singh-petitioner, the said period is four months and one day. It is also clear from the custody certificate issued in respect of Darshan Singh-petitioner that he availed parole for a period of Crl. Revision No. 1639 of 2003 -3- four weeks. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars once again for undergoing the remainder of their sentences. Ends of justice would be amply met if the substantive sentences of the petitioners are reduced to that already undergone by them. Resultantly, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of the petitioners are reduced to that already undergone by them. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default clause is maintained. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. (T.P.S.MANN) August 25, 2010 JUDGE Pds. Crl. Revision No. 1639 of 2003 -4-