Judgment:
Criminal Revision No.845 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.845 of 2004 Date of decision:
08. 08.2013.
Sunder Lal ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajat Mor, AAG, Haryana for the respondent – State.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
The present revision petition has been filed after losing the case before the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2004 under Sections 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and was ordered to undergo RI for a period of three months and to pay a fine of `200/- for offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of `2000/- for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2004 and order of sentence dated 27.01.2004 passed by the trial Court was Rani Neetu 2013.08.22 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.845 o”
2. challenged by the petitioner by way of filing appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, which was dismissed on 01.04.2004 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence was upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the judgments of both the Courts by raising various arguments but ultimately, he submits that he does not want to contest conviction in case, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has suffered a lot as he has faced the agony of trial since registration of FIR i.e., 18.10.1997 and he is having no criminal background.
He is not a habitual offender and is only bread winner of his family.
Petitioner has remained in custody approximately for two months against total sentence of one year.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is ready to compensate the aggrieved party in monetary terMs.Learned State counsel has not disputed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner has already suffered agony of trial since 1997; and he is not a habitual offender as no other case is there against him; and he is only bread winner of his family; and no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody again as the petitioner has already been released on bail after suspension of his sentence vide order dated 25.05.2004, the Rani Neetu 2013.08.22 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.845 o”
3. conviction of the petitioner is upheld and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to depositing an amount of `15,000/- before the trial Court, which shall be paid to the dependents of the deceased.
08.08.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE Rani Neetu 2013.08.22 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh