CRR No.1778 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1778 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.01.2011 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate, for Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) This judgment of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing CRR No.1778 of 2010 and CRR No.2773 of 2010 arising out of the same judgment dated 4.6.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Petitioner was found guilty under Sections 326/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. He was further sentenced to CRR No.1778 of 2010 (O&M) -2- undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 324 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Sections 324/34 for a period of one year. However, in appeal learned Sessions Judge has held that punishment under Section 326 IPC awarded by the learned Trial Court is on the higher side and accordingly the same has been reduced to one year instead of three years. Whereas, sentence under Sections 324, 324/34 IPC has been affirmed. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for about eight months during the pendency of this case and he has suffered a lot of embarrassment owing to the pendency of this criminal case. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The sword of damocles is not to hangover the head of the petitioner for all times to come. He has been suffered mental agony due to registration of this criminal case against him. The petitioner has already undergone for about eight months in this case. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of this case while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by him in this case. However, fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each over and above the fine already imposed by the Trial CRR No.1778 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court to be paid to the injured as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification this revision petition stands disposed of. (Alok Singh) Judge January 10, 2011 R.S.