Crl. Revision No.825 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.825 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 26.07.2011 Surinder Bhushan and others ……Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner No.1. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Mr. S. S. Nara, Sr. DAG,Haryana with Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for wife of Miya Singh complainant since deceased. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Surinder Bhushan, Jai Singh and Soma having been convicted and sentenced by both the Courts below, have filed the instant revision petition. Petitioners have been convicted under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 325 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Crl. Revision No.825 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Insofar as conviction of the petitioners is concerned, there is ample evidence on record led by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. Injured complainant Miya Singh himself appeared as PW-1 and supported the prosecution case. His statement has been corroborated by eye witness Jai Singh PW-2. Prosecution case is further strengthened by the medical evidence. There is concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioners recorded by both the Courts below. The said finding does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, conviction of the petitioners is affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for reduction in sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by them. It is stated that the petitioners are in custody since 29.03.2011 i.e. for almost four months. It is also submitted that the petitioners have faced the agony of trial including appeal and revision for more than 10 years. It is also submitted that fine amount may be enhanced so as to pay compensation to the wife of the injured complainant who has since died. Learned counsel for the wife of the injured complainant pointed out that Jai Singh-petitioner No.2 also stands convicted and sentenced under Sections 307 and 325 IPC vide judgment and order dated 19.01.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Crl. Revision No.825 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - appeal of Jai Singh against the said conviction and sentence is pending and he is on bail in the said case. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In my considered view, ends of justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the amount of fine to be paid as compensation to the wife of the injured complainant. Jai Singh petitioner No.2 has to be burdened with more amount of fine in view of his previous conviction. In view of the aforesaid, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody while directing petitioners No.1 and 3 to pay Rs.10000/- each and petitioner No.2 to pay Rs.15000/- as enhanced amount of fine in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Magistrate as upheld by the Sessions Court. The aforesaid additional amount of fine shall be paid as compensation to the wife of Miya Singh injured complainant since deceased. With modification in sentence as aforesaid, the instant revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioners shall be released immediately on deposit of the fine amount with the trial Magistrate, if not required in any other case. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 26.07.2011 A.kaundal