Jaila Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1069490
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-14-2013
AppellantJaila Singh and Another
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl. revision no.28 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. revision no.28 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:14. 02.2013 jaila singh and another ....petitioners versus state of haryana ....respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice paramjeet singh present: - mr.k.b.s.mann, advocate, for the petitioners.mr.sandeep s. mann, sr.dag, haryana. ***** paramjeet singh, j. (oral) crl. misc. no.633 of 2013 for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 88 days in file the present revision petition is condoned. crl. revision no.28 of 2013 (o&m) present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners against judgment dated 13.7.2012 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, sirsa, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and judgment of conviction dated 10.5.2010 and order of sentence dated 11.5.2010 passed by the learned sub divisional judicial magistrate, dabwali, sentencing the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment under section 323 read with section 34 ipc for three months, under section 325 read with section 34 ipc to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of rs.500/- each, in crl. revision no.28 of 2013 -2- default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week has been upheld. i need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment 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. however, he prays that the sentence of the petitioners be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on their heads like damocle's sword for more than 8 years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat them leniently. counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the fir pertains to the year 2005 and since then a period of more than 8 years has elapsed. the petitioners have suffered the ordeal for long period. learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioners have already undergone seven months imprisonment. in view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.which have been noted above, this court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars further as the petitioners faced ordeal for more than 8 years.it is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the petitioners can be reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. ordered accordingly. crl. revision no.28 of 2013 -3- however, sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact. the petitioners are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any case and on payment of fine, if already not paid. with the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. (paramjeet singh) judge february 14, 2013 r.s.
Judgment:

Crl.

Revision No.28 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Revision No.28 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:

14. 02.2013 Jaila Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: - Mr.K.B.S.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Sandeep S.

Mann, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

(ORAL) Crl.

Misc.

No.633 of 2013 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 88 days in file the present revision petition is condoned.

Crl.

Revision No.28 of 2013 (O&M) Present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners against judgment dated 13.7.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and judgment of conviction dated 10.5.2010 and order of sentence dated 11.5.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, sentencing the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for three months, under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in Crl.

Revision No.28 of 2013 -2- default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week has been upheld.

I need not dilate upon the facts of this case in detail as the same have already been recapitulated in the judgment 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.

However, he prays that the sentence of the petitioners be suitably reduced as this criminal trial is hanging on their heads like damocle's sword for more than 8 years and it should be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to treat them leniently.

Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the FIR pertains to the year 2005 and since then a period of more than 8 years has elapsed.

The petitioners have suffered the ordeal for long period.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioners have already undergone seven months imprisonment.

In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioneRs.which have been noted above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars further as the petitioners faced ordeal for more than 8 yeaRs.It is a fit case wherein sentence awarded to the petitioners can be reduced for the period already undergone in the present case.

Ordered accordingly.

Crl.

Revision No.28 of 2013 -3- However, sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact.

The petitioners are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any case and on payment of fine, if already not paid.

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

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge February 14, 2013 R.S.