Criminal Revision No. 2354 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2354 of 2011 Date of decision : 4.11.2011. Sanju alias Sanjeev Kumar ................ Petitioner vs. State of Haryana ................. Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Sh. A.K.Khubbar, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. K.C. PURI, J. This is revision petition against the judgment dated 6.9.2011 passed by Shri Bimlesh Tanwar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide which the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the judgment 6.6.2009 and order dated 7.7.2009 passed by Shri Criminal Revision No. 2354 of 2011 2 Rajeev Goyal, the then learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,m Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, was dismissed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.2.2004 some sisters pertaining to 'Prajapati Brahm Kumari Vishwa Vidalya' had come to Radaur and around 4.30p.m. one of them had gone outside the meeting hall and found a stranger present in the corridor of the building. On enquiry, he asked that number of beauties had come and he had fallen for them, particularly a girl attending the 'Satsang' inside the hall and further asserted that he would take away the said girl forcibly with him. After that he caught hold the said sister. In the meantime, the complainant along with others including Suishil Kumar, Harish Kumar, Panch and Ram Kishan reached there and rescued the said sister. Thereafter, the accused abused all the persons, who were present there and further threatened to kill the persons who were making endeavour to catch hold the accused. However, he was over powered and on enquiry, he disclosed his name and parentage etc. On the aforesaid statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused. The investigation commenced. The accused was arrested. Statements of the PWs were recorded and after completion of the necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial. 3. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were supplied to him and on finding a prima facie case charge under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC was framed against him and he pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed trial. Criminal Revision No. 2354 of 2011 3 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined Madan Lal Chopra (complainant) (PW-1), Neetu Behan (PW-2), HC Ram Kumar (PW-3), Sushil Kumar as (PW-4), Ram Kishan (PW-5) and Harish Kumar as PW-6 and closed the prosecution evidence. 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the allegations and claimed his innocence. He did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused vide judgment 6.7.2009 and vide order dated 7.7.2009 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 294 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 506 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, the accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused-appellant preferred appeal before learned First Appellate Court, the said learned Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 6.9.2011. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and order, the present revision petition has been directed by the accused-appellant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. Criminal Revision No. 2354 of 2011 4 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction recorded by both the Courts below but has prayed regarding reduction in the quantum of sentence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the alleged occurrence has taken place more than seven and half years ago and since then the petitioner is undergoing the protracted trial. He is a young person of 22 years of age and has been convicted only under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC. So, prayer has been made for reduction in sentence. 11. Prayer has been opposed by the learned State counsel. 12. I have carefully considered the said submission. 13. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of one month and twenty eight days as on 3.11.2011. He has been convicted under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC and the maximum sentence awarded is six months. Out of that sentence, he has already undergone about 1/3rd of the sentence. He is facing trial for the last more than seven and half years. So, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, his sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone. However, his sentence of fine stands enhanced to Rs.10,000/- in all i.e. Rs.3000/- under Section 323 IPC and Rs.4000/- under Section 506 IPC and Rs.3000/- under Section 294 IPC also includes the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court i.e., Rs.2000/-. 14. With the modification in the sentence, the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 15. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. The accused be released forthwith after depositing of the Criminal Revision No. 2354 of 2011 5 amount, as indicated above, and if not required in any other case. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 04 , 2011 sv