IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 1350 of 2010 Date of decision: 8.7.2010 Harbhajan Singh and another ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, A.A.G.Punjab. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 7.5.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.1.2007 of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri has been dismissed and conviction and sentence was upheld. Notice in the application as well as in the revision was issued on 17.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned judgment for conviction and order of sentence are legally unsustainable as both the courts below have failed to appreciate the material facts that the prosecution has not been able to stand on its legs and failed to prove the case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the incident was not witnessed by any eye-witness and there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel also submits that Crl.Revision No. 1350 of 2010 [2] petitioners are also agreed to pay some reasonable amount of compensation to the injured witnesses. Mr.Aman Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by them, he would not like to contest the conviction and would restrict his claim to the sentence part only. The petitioners have already undergone more than 2 months of actual sentence against total sentence of 1 year and they have also suffered the agony of protracted trial for the last more than 8- 1/2 years. The petitioners are first offender having no criminal background. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the present case, FIR No. 26 dated 30.1.2002 under Sections 333/353/332/186/34 IPC was registered at Police Station, Dhuri against three accused namely Harbhajan Singh, Gurmit Singh and Vicky as they caused injuries to Head Constable Dhan Pal Singh, a public servant, and also caused hurt to him and obstructed in the discharge of his public duty. Accused Vicky died during the pendency of the proceedings. On the basis of evidence produced by both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted both the accused under sections 332/34 IPC and 353, 186 IPC and sentenced as under: Harbhajan Singh U/s 332/34 IPC To undergo RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months U/s 353 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months. U/s 186 IPC To undergo RI for 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 15 days. Crl.Revision No. 1350 of 2010 [3] Gurmit Singh U/s 332/34 IPC To undergo RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months. U/s 353 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months. U/s 186 IPC To undergo RI for 2 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 15 days. The appeal was filed by both the accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by S.D.J.M. Dhuri was upheld. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his prayer to the sentence part only and has not contested the conviction and also submitted that the petitioners have already undergone more than 2 months' of sentence against the total sentence of 1 year and they have already suffered a lot as they have faced the agony of protracted trial for the last about 8-1/2 years. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are first offender having no criminal background and have already undergone more than 2 months' of actual sentence against the total sentence of 1 year and have faced the agony of protracted trial for the last 8-1/2 years, the prayer of the petitioners is allowed. Crl.Revision No. 1350 of 2010 [4] Under these circumstances, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 332/34, 353 and 186 IPC, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, in the interest of justice, both the petitioners are directed to pay total amount of Rs.20,000/-as compensation to the injured which is to be shared by both the petitioners equally. The said amount be deposited in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the order reducing the sentence to the period already undergone would be treated as withdrawn and petitioners would undergo the remainder part of the sentence. However, the sentence of fine shall remain the same. With above modification, the revision petition is disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE July 8, 2010. raghav