IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.260 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 25, 2010 VINOD KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two revision petitions viz. CRR 245 of 2010 (Tilak vs. State of Haryana) and CRR 260 of 2010 (Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana). Learned counsel for the petitioners in both these cases, at the outset, states that the judgment of conviction is not under challenge and is accepted. In regard to sentence, however, it has been pleaded that the matter be considered with leniency insomuch as the FIR was lodged as far back as on 4.10.2002. The petitioners in the two revision petitions have been facing protracted trial for more than 7 years. The role ascribed to the Criminal Rev. No.260 of 2010 2 petitioners is also inconsequential as compared to the role of Sonu, who inflicted the injury. While petitioner-Tilak caught hold of the hand of the injured and did not cause any injury, petitioner-Vinod Kumar allegedly caused injuries with stick on the leg and thighs. As per the medico-legal report, injuries on leg and thighs were not detected. The conviction has been recorded for commission of offences under Sections 323/324/452/34, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have been sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment, as follows:- - Section 452, IPC : imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month; - Section 323, IPC : imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each; - Section 324, IPC : imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each; I have considered the issue. Petitioner-Tilak, at the time of the incident, was aged 25 years and has not been attributed any injury, as per the prosecution case. Other petitioner-Vinod Kumar, at the time of the incident, was aged about 33 years. Both the petitioners have no criminal background. Both the petitioners have undergone more than 4 months of actual sentence. Considering the protracted trial already faced by the petitioners, the fact that they are the only bread winners in the family and the circumstances noticed above, the revision petitions are accepted in Criminal Rev. No.260 of 2010 3 regard to sentence. The sentence of the petitioners in both the cases is reduced to already undergone. The sentence in regard to fine is maintained. February 25, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?