Crl. Revn. No. 280 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 280 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 27, 2011 Satpal and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. K. D. S. Hooda, Advocate for Mr. J. S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Nara, Senior DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the complainant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two Criminal Revisions i.e. Crl. Revn. No. 280 of 2011 filed by Satpal and Sultan and Crl. Revn. No. 379 of 2011 filed by Mani Ram because both these revision petitions have arisen out of common judgments of the courts below. All the three petitioners were tried under Sections 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) for causing injuries to the Crl. Revn. No. 280 of 2011 2 complainant Amar Singh. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad, vide judgment dated 01.09.2008, convicted the accused-petitioners for the said offences and vide order dated 02.09.2008, awarded sentence as under :- Offence under Section Sentence 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. 326 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by all the three convicts has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide judgment dated 20.01.2011. Feeling aggrieved, convicts have preferred the instant revision petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are in custody since 20.01.2011 i.e. for more than six months. Prayer is made for reduction in sentence of imprisonment with offer of Crl. Revn. No. 280 of 2011 3 compensation for the injured complainant. The prayer is opposed by the State counsel and the counsel for the complainant. I have carefully considered the matter. Grievous hurt falling within the purview of Section 326 IPC was on left forearm i.e. on non-vital part. It was incised wound of 1 cm x ½ cm with fracture of ulna bone. Injury on the head was simple. Blunt weapon injury on shoulder was also simple. The petitioners have been facing agony of trial including appeal and revisions for more than ten years. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if sentence of imprisonment is reduced while enhancing the amount of fine so as to pay compensation to the injured complainant. Accordingly, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone, while enhancing the amount of fine by Rs.15,000/- for each of three convicts, in addition to the fine already imposed by the courts below. The additional amount of fine totalling Rs.45,000/- shall be deposited with the trial court and shall be paid to the injured complainant. On deposit of fine, the petitioners shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. With modification in sentence, both the revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. July 27, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE