IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3366 of 2009 Date of decision: 18. 2..2010 Rajinder and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, with Mr.Sandeep Panwar, Advocate.. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- accused against judgment dated 11.12.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners-accused against judgment dated 3.12.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC to imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for seven days under Section 406 IPC and imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 15 days under Section 498-A IPC was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the material point of not examining the investigating officer who was the material witness and there Crl. Revision No. 3366 of 2009 [2] are contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The complainant remained only for 15 days in the matrimonial house i.e. one week immediately after marriage and one week later on. It has further been argued by the learned counsel fore the petitioners that it was a case of simple marriage and no dowry articles were given and recovery of the dowry articles was made in the presence of Investigating Officer only who has not been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the conviction of the petitioners but prays that a lenient view be taken keeping in view the agony of the protracted trial undergone by the petitioners since 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners is ready to pay some reasonable amount of compensation to the complainant if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for the State argues that the FIR was registered within 11 months of the marriage and specific allegations are there against all the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I am in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as he has not challenged the conviction and is ready to compensate the complainant by payment of reasonable amount of money. Moreover, the petitioners have also faced the agony of long trial since 2003 and it would be in the interest of justice to compensate the complainant. The conviction of the petitioners is upheld and the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone. The Crl. Revision No. 3366 of 2009 [3] petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The amount be deposited in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for payment to the complainant, failing which the revision petition will stand dismissed and petitioners will undergo remaining part of the sentence. With above modification, the revision petition is disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE February 18, 2010. raghav