Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1051941
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-08-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Sandeep Thakan Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crr no.3728 of 2012(o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryanaat chandigarh crr no.3728 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision: february 08, 2013 manphul and others .petitioners versus state of haryana ..respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh 1 whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2) to be referred to the reporters or not?. 3) whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr.sandeep thakan, advocate, for the petitioners.mr.sandeep s. mann, sr.dag, haryana. paramjeet singh, j. (oral) present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners against judgment dated 13.10.2012 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, bhiwani, whereby criminal appeal no.68 of 2010 preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned sub divisional judicial magistrate, charkhi dadri has been upheld, vide which the petitioners and co-accused have been convicted for offences punishable under sections 323, 325 read with section 149 of the indian penal code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six crr no.3728 of 2012(o&m) 2 months and to pay a fine of rs.200/- each under section 323 read with section 149 of the indian penal code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of rs.500/- each under section 325 read with section 149 ipc. in default, the petitioners and co-accused have been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. i need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgments of the learned courts below and in view of the ultimate prayer of the petitioner seeking reduction in sentence. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction on merit. he is only aggrieved against the sentence part. learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the sentence of the petitioners be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on their head like damocle's sword for the last about fourteen years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat them leniently. counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that fir relates to the year 1999 and since then a period of about fourteen years has elapsed. the petitioners have suffered the ordeal of trial for this long period. in view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the crr no.3728 of 2012(o&m) 3 petitioners.this court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars as the petitioners have already faced ordeal for about fourteen years.it is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the petitioners can be reduced to the period already undergone. therefore, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in the present case, however, fine and default clause are maintained. the petitioners be released in this case subject to deposit of fine amount and if not required in any other case. the impugned order of sentence, fine and conviction including default clause stands affirmed with aforesaid modification. with the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. february 08, 2013 [ paramjeet singh ].vkd judge
Judgment:

CRR No.3728 of 2012(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3728 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 08, 2013 Manphul and others .Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present: Mr.Sandeep Thakan, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Sandeep S.

Mann, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

(Oral) Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners against judgment dated 13.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2010 preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri has been upheld, vide which the petitioners and co-accused have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six CRR No.3728 of 2012(O&M) 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC.

In default, the petitioners and co-accused have been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgments of the learned Courts below and in view of the ultimate prayer of the petitioner seeking reduction in sentence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is not pressing this revision on merit and is not challenging the conviction on merit.

He is only aggrieved against the sentence part.

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the sentence of the petitioners be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on their head like Damocle's sword for the last about fourteen years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat them leniently.

Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that FIR relates to the year 1999 and since then a period of about fourteen years has elapsed.

The petitioners have suffered the ordeal of trial for this long period.

In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the CRR No.3728 of 2012(O&M) 3 petitioneRs.this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars as the petitioners have already faced ordeal for about fourteen yeaRs.It is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the petitioners can be reduced to the period already undergone.

Therefore, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in the present case, however, fine and default clause are maintained.

The petitioners be released in this case subject to deposit of fine amount and if not required in any other case.

The impugned order of sentence, fine and conviction including default clause stands affirmed with aforesaid modification.

With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of.

February 08, 2013 [ Paramjeet Singh ].vkd Judge