Crl. Revision No. 1244 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1244 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: November 15, 2011 Angad & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners and the complainant entangled themselves in a fight. The dispute arose between the petitioners and the complainant when the complainant turn for watering the fields came. Petitioner No.1-Angad armed with wooden sangi, which is an instrument used in the farming, and petitioner No.2- Hanuman armed with gandasi came to the nakka (opening) of the water course and removed the wooden plank. This led to a fight leading to prosecution of the petitioners for an offence under Section 326 IPC. FIR initially was registered under Sections 325/34 IPC. The offence under Section 326 was added on the basis of an X-ray report. Ultimately the petitioners were convicted for offences under Sections 324/325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Their appeal was also dismissed and accordingly, they have filed the present revision. Crl. Revision No. 1244 of 2005 -2- The incident took place in the year 1996. The trial followed and the conviction was recorded in the year 2002. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed in the year 2005 and since then they are before this Court through the present revision petition. Though the petitioners have not undergone any substantial sentence out of the sentence imposed, but the counsel prays for leniency. Counsel submits that he would not press the revision petition on merits. As per the custody certificate placed before me and taken on record, petitioner No.1 has undergone the rigorous imprisonment of 14 days only upto the date of conviction. Petitioner No.2, on the other hand, has undergone rigorous imprisonment of one month and nine days out of the sentence imposed. Ordinarily, the showing leniency may not have been been called for by remitting the remaining imprisonment. Considering the fact that this was not a case of pre-determined fight and the incident happened on the spur of the moment, which is not unusual in this part of the country, I am of the view that the case for showing some leniency is made out. The petitioners are first offenders and the case for their release on probation was not considered which by now has been recognised as mandatory requirement under Section 360 Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, the petitioners otherwise can be asked to compensate the complainant. Besides they have undertaken to maintain a good behaviour in future . The incident being old would be another added reason and the protracted trial suffered by the petitioners may still be an additional cause to show some consideration. Considering all the facts as noticed, the sentence imposed on the petitioners is reduced Crl. Revision No. 1244 of 2005 -3- to the period already undergone. The revision otherwise stands dismissed. The fine in case of Hanuman-petitioner No.2 shall stand enhanced to `10,000/-, to be paid to the complainant. On the other hand, the fine imposed on Angad-petitioner No.1 shall stand enhanced to `20,000/-, which shall also be paid to the complainant. The petitioners shall deposit the enhanced fine within two months from today. If the enhanced fine is not deposited, the sentence imposed shall stand revived. November 15, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE