Criminal Revision No.707 of 2006 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.707 of 2006 Date of Decision: 28.03.2011. Krishan and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana, for the respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated March 8th, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, whereby, he partly accepted the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 14th, 2004 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon, and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under: - U/s Sentence Fine In default 323/34 IPC RI for 3 months 325/34 IPC RI for 1 year Rs. 1000/- | SI for two 326/34 IPC RI for 2 years Rs. 5000/- | months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. On August 20th, 1995, an occurrence took place in village Jatauli over a trivial issue of allegedly throwing water by Harpal Singh, complainant-injured (PW-3) in the passage being used by Madan Singh and Sudhir-petitioners. From the complainant side, Harpal Singh, Kamlesh and Baljeet received injuries at the hands of the petitioners. whereas, from the side of the petitioners, Madan, Sudhir – petitioners and Omwati wife of Madan also received injuries. Criminal Revision No.707 of 2006 2 .. Sudhir also suffered a fracture. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that he does not challenge the conviction and prays for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by them, that is, 5 months and 7 days, as per jail custody certificates. 4. Madan-petitioner is an ex-serviceman and is in his 60s. The main injury which fell under the mischief of Section 326 IPC was attributed to Satish, who has since expired. The occurrence took place in the year 1995 and thus, the petitioners have suffered the agony of protracted criminal proceedings spreading over a long period of 16 years. They are the only bread winners of their families. 5. The aforesaid circumstances justify the request made. Hence, this Court upholds the conviction of the petitioners but reduces the sentence to the period already undergone by them. However, the amount of fine shall remain intact. 6. The revision is accepted partly as indicated above. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 28.03.2011 som