IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1292 of 2001 Date of decision: 24th March, 2009 Balwan Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Balwan Singh, Dharam Pal @ Thekedar and Nanku. At the time of occurrence, they were aged 21, 22 and 25 years respectively. Case of the prosecution was that on 7th May, 1991, Laxmi Devi widow of Hazari Lal met SI Jai Kishan and stated that she is a widow and an agriculturist. On the intervening night of 6th and 7th May, 1991, her son Mehar Singh has gone to the fields for thrashing wheat crop. At about 9/10 p.m., she after locking the house, went to the bed. At about 1.30/ 2.00 a.m. she heard noise. She got up and saw the door of the house lying open. She raised noise ‘Chor Chor’. On hearing her noise, Hari Singh and Hardeva were attracted to the spot. At that time, the three petitioners came out of her house. Hari Singh and Hardeva made an attempt to apprehend the accused, then Balwan Singh, who was armed Criminal Revision No. 1292 of 2001 with knife, hit the knife on the head of Hari Singh. Dharampal, who was also armed with a knife, gave knife blow on the right hand of Hari Singh. After causing injuries, accused ran away from the spot. Complainant party, out of fear, had not followed the accused. It was found that lock of the box was opened, out of which Rs.1200/-, Rs.18000/-, Rs.9000/- and Rs.500/- were stolen along with one HMT watch, two golden nose rings and other gold ornaments. Counsel for the petitioner, after arguing for some time, has stated that since two courts below are against him, he will not be praying to this Court for acquittal of the petitioners. He has however, stated that since petitioners are young persons and in the last 18 years, they have committed no other offence, taking into consideration protracted trial, this Court should reduce the sentence awarded upon the petitioners. I find merit in the submissions made by the counsel and same is not seriously opposed by the Counsel for the State. Therefore, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced from two years to nine months under Section 458 IPC. However, sentence awarded under Section 380 IPC is maintained. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 24, 2009 rps 2