IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1568 of 2004 Date of decision: 6th May, 2009 Ishwar Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Ishwar Singh son of Amar Chand was prosecuted in case FIR No. 86 dated 17.05.1989 registered at Police Station Khol under Section 377 IPC. Lal Singh complainant, on 17th May, 1989 appeared in the Police Station and got his statement recorded, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. He stated that a day prior to the occurrence, there was a Lagan ceremony for performance of marriage of the petitioner. In the evening, Ishwar Singh asked him to accompany for watering the fields. Accused took Lal Singh into kotha of Manohar, where fodder was stored. Accused undressed himself and made Lal Singh fall on the ground and committed unnatural act. Complainant Lal Singh wept, but accused kept his one hand on the mouth of the complainant Lal Singh. Thereafter, accused ran away from the spot. Blood was oozing from the anus of the Criminal Revision No. 1568 of 2004 complainant. His underwear was also wet with blood. He narrated the occurrence to his mother and brother and thereafter, he went to the Police Station and on the basis of statement made 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. Two courts below considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the defence that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the evening, whereas FIR was lodged on the next day, i.e. 17th May, 1989 at 12.30 a.m. 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 20 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. Taking into consideration the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner and the fact that petitioner has suffered a protracted trial of about 20 years and petitioner was of young age at the time of occurrence, I 2 Criminal Revision No. 1568 of 2004 am of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from 1 ½ 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 6, 2009 rps 3