In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No. 2010 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: September 20, 2011 Satbir and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Rana, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 26.8.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioners (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 28/29.4.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat, convicting and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Section 323 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of `500/- each under Section 325 IPC At the very outset, without assailing the judgment of conviction, the petitioners have thrown themselves at the mercy of the court while urging that they are the first offenders and have already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence, as such, they have claimed some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. Both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the accused in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple as well as grievous hurt to Sunita and Ranbir. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception could be made to the findings returned by the courts below, at this revisional stage. Criminal Revision No. 2010 of 2011 (O&M) Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 2004; the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against them since then; they have already undergone about one month of the substantive sentence and are ready to pay compensation; no bad antecedents have come on record so as to dub them as habitual offenders; as such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to them. Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioners is modified to the extent that they be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they will be ready to serve remaining part of the sentence as and when called for. However, they are directed to pay `20,000/-, as compensation, to the injured which would be shared by them equally. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat for compliance. September 20, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge