IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.3079 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.1.2010 Duni Chand … Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harinder S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. Sabina J. The petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 326 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 8.10.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar. Vide order dated 10.10.2007, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 /- under Section 326 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay of Rs.1000/- under Section 452 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The revision filed by the complainant and the appeal filed by the appellant-accused were disposed of and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced to one year under Section 326 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under section 452 IPC while sentence qua fine imposed by the trial Court was maintained vide judgment dated 17.11.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. Hence, the present revision petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.Revision No.3079 of 2009 (O&M) Prosecution case in brief as noticed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 4 of its judgment reads as under:- “The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 14.12.2000, at about 9.00 p.m. complainant Shanti and Krishna wife of Suresh were present in their house. Duni son of Ram Chand came there armed with a Jelli. He inflicted blow which landed on upper side of right knee of complainant Shanti. Jagdish son of Mohar Singh also came there and started abusing them. Mohar Singh son of Ram Chand also arrived there and abused complainant and Krishna. Ram Chander son of Sheo Ram also arrived there and abused them. On haring their alarm Surender son of Rajender and Satbir son of Hari Ram came at the spot, upon which assailants went away. The motive in the incident was stated that there was some dispute between their children and keeping the same grudge she was cause injuries. Complainant also mentioned in her initial version Ex.P1 to the police that at the time of incident only she and Krishna were present and none else was present. PW4 Ami Chand Inspector, made endorsement Ex.P1/B below statement Ex.P1 of Shanti Devi and sent the same to police station through constable Satbir whereupon FIR Ex.P1/A was recorded in police station. He visited the spot and prepared scaled sit plan Ex.P2. After receipt of x-ray report offence under Section 326 IPC was added in this case. Appellant and his co accused were arrested. The appellant produced Jelli at the time of his arrest which was taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.P4. After completion of investigation, he submitted report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in the court of Illaqa Magistrate.” This petition was admitted qua quantum of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only single blow was attributed to the petitioner. In fact, it is a case of cross version but accused in the cross case under Section 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted. The incident in this case, had taken place in the year 2000. The petitioner was the sole bread-earner of the family, had two minor children and old aged father to maintain. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone 2 months and 28 days of actual sentence as on 26.1.2010. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. 2 Crl.Revision No.3079 of 2009 (O&M) Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fit case where the sentence is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, sentence qua imprisonment is reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Fine has already been deposited by the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. [ Sabina ] Judge 27.01.2010 sd 3