IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2005 Date of decision: December 02, 2010 Tuli and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. None for the respondent No.2. A.N. Jindal, J Initially four accused were prosecuted, out of them Lekh Raj died during the pendency of the trial and accused Ram Bai was acquitted of the charges, whereas, the remaining two accused were convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 10/11.9.2002 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- under Section 323/34 IPC. Their appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 9.9.2005. At the very outset without assailing the finding of conviction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the injuries caused by them are minor and they have already undergone about two months of the substantive sentence, therefore, they may be dealt with leniently 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 was guilty of the offence for which they were charged. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this court. As such, no exception to the opinion expressed by the courts below could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1989; the petitioners have already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending Criminal Revision No. 2066 of 2005 -2- against them since then; they have already undergone two months of the substantive sentence and they are ready to compensate the injured. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to that of already undergone by them without any alteration in the sentence of fine. However, they would deposit Rs.10,000/- as compensation in the name of the injured Chitar Singh and Bimla, which would be shared by them equally, within three months from today failing which they would undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial court. In case none of them survives, their share would be received by his/her legal heirs. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, for compliance. December 02, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge