CRR No.2156 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR No.2156 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 16.09.2011 Parmod ....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 09.07.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rohtak, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the judgment of conviction dated 12.05.2011 and order of sentence dated 13.05.2011, passed under Section 394 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rohtak. The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.07.2010 at around 7.30/8.00 P.M., complainant-Rajesh along with her husband Sunil had reached Shivaji Colony, Rohtak and her husband was walking ahead of her. After sometime, a person came from behind and asked the complainant to give him her chain. When she refused to do so, the said person took out a CRR No.2156 of 2011 (O&M) 2 knife and inflicted injuries in her abdomen, chest and waist. When the complainant raised hue and cry, a person came out of his house, seeing whom the accused fled away from the spot. The injured-complainant was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak, for treatment by her husband. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, a case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge report was presented. The accused was charged under Section 394 IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined Constable Sandeep (PW-1), Rajesh-complainant (PW-2), ASI Devi Singh (PW-3), Dr. Sandeep, CMO, PGIMS, Rohtak (PW-4), SI Ram Bhaj (PW-5) and Sunil, husband of the complainant (PW-6). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted into conviction. His appeal was also dismissed. Heard, both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that on 26.07.2010 at about 7.30 to 8.00 P.M., in the area of Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, the petitioner had caused injuries to the complainant while attempting to commit robbery. The ingredients of Section 394 IPC are duly proved against the petitioner. Faced with the situation, the counsel for the petitioner without assailing the judgment of conviction, has urged for CRR No.2156 of 2011 (O&M) 3 extending some leniency to the petitioner on the quantum of sentence. Having heard the contention, I find some merit in it. The petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family; he has been facing the agony of the trial for the last about one year; he is in custody since the date of his arrest, but these circumstances are not sufficient to completely wipe out the sentence, however, some reduction could be made. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to 2½ years, without any alteration in the sentence of fine. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, for compliance. (A.N.JINDAL) 16th September, 2011 JUDGE ajp