In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1201 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2009 Raju ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) vide judgment dated 28.2.2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palwal. Vide order dated 1.3.2007, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.200/- under Section 326 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 4.7.2008 by the Additional Criminal Revision No.1201 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Hence, the present revision petition. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “In nut shell, the facts related to the present case are that an FIR was lodged in police station City Palwal on 31.5.99 as FIR No.388 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 324/326/34 IPC. The allegations levelled in the FIR, in essence, were based on the statement of complainant/injured Dharambir recorded by Head constable Ganesh Dass on 31.5.1999. It was revealed by the complainant that on 30.5.1999 at about 6.30 p.m. he inquired from 'Mukti' daughter of Hari about the stitching of the blouse of his wife by the aunt of Mukti. On inquiry, Mukti informed that the blouse has been stitched. In the meantime, the injured/complainant went to the nearby tap to wash his hands. There 'Raju', Anand Swarup and ' Birju' came. They were armed with sword and on the pretext of mis-behaving with their niece, the above said three persons launched an attack on his person and inflicted multiple injuries with the help of sword and when he raised alarm for help, 'Sandu' and 'Giriraj' came on the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of the accused.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of Criminal Revision No.1201 of 2008 (O&M) -3- arguments, has submitted that the petitioner was not a previous convict and had undergone actual sentence of about two months. There was no injury on any vital part of the injured. He has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 and 326 IPC but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment be reduced to as already undergone by the petitioner. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner is liable to be reduced to as already undergone by him. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioner under Sections 324 and 326 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to as already undergone by him and sentence qua fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- under Section 326 IPC. The enhanced amount of fine be deposited within one month from today, failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE May 25, 2009 anita