IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1734 of 2002 Date of decision: 12th May, 2009 Vijay Pal … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Lamba, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Vijay Pal son of Phool Singh was prosecuted in case FIR No. 43 dated 08.02.1994 registered at Police Station Jatusana under Section 377 IPC. Roop Chand complainant, on 8th February, 1994 submitted an application in the Police Station, on the basis of which, FIR war registered. He stated that he has two sons. His elder son, Shiv Kumar is in the service of C.R.P.F. Shiv Kumar has two sons, namely Manoj Kumar and Devender. On 7th February, 1994 both the children were coming back from school. Accused Vijay Pal was also coming along with them. Manoj Kumar came running to the house and told the complainant (his grandfather) that in the way Vijay Pal took Devender in the mustard field and did obscene acts with him. Complainant reached at the spot and the accused ran away from there. Devender was weeping and his anus was bleeding. On the Criminal Revision No. 1734 of 2002 next day, i.e. 8th February, 1994, complainant went to the Police Station and on the basis of application submitted by him, case was registered. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) was submitted. Thereafter, petitioner was charged for offence. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari held the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. Same was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari and conviction and sentence was maintained. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not be in a position to assail conviction of the petitioner but he has prayed that taking into consideration protracted trial of about 15 years, sentence awarded upon the petitioner be reduced to already undergone. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon ‘Jit Masih v. State of Punjab’ 1994 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 335, wherein taking into consideration agony of trial of three years and age of the petitioner, sentence was reduced to six months. Counsel has further placed reliance upon ‘Om Parkash v. State of Haryana’ 1994 (2) RCR (Criminal) 78, where taking into consideration protracted trial of 8 ½ years, sentence was reduced to already undergone. Counsel has further relied upon ‘Chitranjan Dass v. State of U.P.’ AIR 1974 SC 2352, where the sentence was reduced to already undergone, as in that case, accused had undergone two months. To fortify this submission, counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon ‘Fazal Rab Chaudhary v. State of Bihar’ AIR 1983 SC 323, where sentence was reduced from three years to six months. 2 Criminal Revision No. 1734 of 2002 Taking into consideration the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner and the fact that petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of about 15 years and petitioner was of young age at the time of occurrence, I am of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from 3 years to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, sentence of fine is maintained. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 12, 2009 rps 3