Criminal Revision No. 1109 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Revision No. 1109 of 2001 Date of Decision: 6.3.2009 Panna Lal and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Revision No. 1183 of 2001 Jawahar Lal and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioners (In Criminal Revision No. 1109 of 2001). Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners (In Criminal Revision No.1183 of 2001). Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the complainant Raj Kumar. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, two revision petitions i.e. Criminal Criminal Revision No. 1109 of 2001 2 Revision No. 1109 of 2001 titled as “ Panna Lal and Others v. State of Punjab” and Criminal Revision No. 1183 of 2001 titled as “Jawahar Lal and Others v. State of Punjab” will be decided together. Counsel for the petitioners at the outset have stated that the matter has been compromised. He further stated that in the interest of social harmony, amicable and cordial relations between the parties, petitioners be not sent behind the bars as he will not be assailing the conviction of the petitioners. In the occurrence three persons, namely Raj Kumar, Bhai Lal and Ram Bahadur had suffered the injuries. Raj Kumar had suffered five injuries. Injury No.1 was incised wound, bone deep on the right forehead, injury No.2 was a contusion on the neck, injury No.3 was on the left deltoid, injury No.4 was on the back of right forearm and injury No.5 was on the right calf. According to counsel for the petitioners, injury No.1 was declared as grievous. Injury No.1 falls within the ambit of Section 326 IPC. Bhai Lal had suffered an injury on his private parts, whereas Ram Bahadur had suffered three blunt injuries. During the pendency of petition, it is stated that Bhai Lal and Ram Bahadur had expired, due to natural death. Affidavit of Raj Kumar has been placed on record to state that since the parties are residing in the same locality, they have effected compromise. Raj Kumar is present in the Court. He has been identified by his counsel Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate. Raj Kumar, who is present in person, has submitted that in case petitioners are sent behind the Criminal Revision No. 1109 of 2001 3 bars, it may rupture the prevailing peace between the parties. Occurrence in the present case had taken place on 29.7.1991 and 17 years are going to elapse. In case petitioners are sent behind the bars it may unsettle the settled dispute. Therefore, compromise is to be taken into consideration as one of the mitigating circumstance along with the protracted trial suffered by the petitioners for about 17 years. Petitioners at the time of occurrence were between the age of 25 to 35 years. Within 17 years, they have been fastened themselves with many responsibilities of the family. In case they are sent behind the bars, sufferers will be of their families as it is stated that children of the petitioners are of marriageable age and it may affect their matrimonial prospects. Petitioners were convicted to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. The fine was also imposed. In default of payment of fine, they had to further undergo requisite period awarded by the trial Court. Petitioners have also undergone 15 to 20 days of their sentence. In view of what has been noticed above, sentence awarded upon the petitioners is reduced to already undergone. With the observations made above, both the revision petitions are disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 6, 2009 “DK”