Criminal Revision No. 2349 of 2003 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Revision No. 2349 of 2003 Date of Decision: 29.4.2009 Kamal Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Revision No. 2507 of 2003 Som Raj …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, two Criminal Revision Petitions bearing Nos.2349 of 200-3 titled as “Kamal Kumar v. State of Punjab” and 2507 of 2003 titled as “Som Raj v. State of Punjab” will be decided together. Kamal Kumar and Som Raj were convicted and sentenced by Criminal Revision No. 2349 of 2003 2 the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nabha, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Section 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment three months each under Section 323 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The petitioners had filed an appeal. The same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, maintained the sentence awarded to Som Raj, whereas sentence awarded to Kamal Kumar under Section 326 IPC was modified and was reduced from two years to one year. Sentence of fine was also maintained. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has stated that in the present case occurrence had taken place on 7.2.1999 and thus, the petitioners had suffered protracted trial of ten years. He has further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to compensate injured Santosh Devi who had suffered a grievous injury on the right leg. It has been further submitted that at the time of occurrence, petitioner Kamal Kumar was aged 32 years and petitioner Som Raj was aged 42 years. Counsel for the petitioners has read order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Nabha, where quantum of sentence was determined. In the order, plea of the petitioners had been noticed that they are only bread winners of their families and they are the first time offenders. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, Criminal Revision No. 2349 of 2003 3 has stated that in the present case injured Santosh Devi should be adequately compensated. Before the rival submissions raised are appreciated, brief facts of the case can be noticed as under. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 7.2.1999 at 1.00 P.M. FIR was lodged after a delay of 19 days on 26.2.1999 at 11.45 A.M. on the statement made by PW.2 Santosh Devi. Occurrence was witnessed by PW.3 Sat Pal and by one Rameshwar Dass. On 10.2.1999 Santosh Devi had also made a statement to Gurpal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, that she received injuries on her person on account of sudden slip of foot and nobody was at fault for the injuries suffered by her. Defence has proved DDR No. 10 dated 10.2.1999 as Ex.D1. This Court need not go into the details as counsel for the petitioners has very fairly stated that in order to promote everlasting peace, they are ready to compensate the injured/complainant. Even otherwise, two Courts below have determined the guilt of the petitioners. Therefore, taking into consideration submissions made by counsel for the parties noticed as prelude to this order, sentence awarded upon the petitioners is reduced to already undergone subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- as fine to be paid as compensation to injured/complainant PW.2 Santosh Devi. Kamal Kumar, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 2349 of 2003 shall pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, whereas Som Raj, petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 2507 of 2003 shall pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-. The fine be deposited in the trial Court within three months Criminal Revision No. 2349 of 2003 4 from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Failure on the part of petitioners to deposit the fine shall disentitle them from benefit in reduction of sentence. With these modifications, both the petitions are disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge April 29, 2009 “DK”