JUDGMENT :

Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)

CRM-29194 of 2018

1. The instant application is for condoning the delay of 29 days in filing of Revision Petition.

2. Heard.

3. Application is allowed and delay of 29 days in filing of Revision Petition is hereby condoned.

Main case

4. By way of the present petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram dated 30.11.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2016 arising out of FIR No. 10 dated 21.01.2013 under Section 323, 506, 34 IPC Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurugram, being erroneous, illegal and against the provision of law to the extent of reducing sentence awarded to respondent No.2 Chandan from one year to simple imprisonment of three months and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner happens to be the complainant in the aforesaid FIR registered on the allegations that on 01.01.2013 the accused party had attacked the house of the petitioner and caused damage to the car besides extending threats on the complainant, both the parties were taken to police station and were detained and while in custody accused Chandan , Charan Singh, Ramesh started abusing the complainant party who were also confined in the lockup and attacked them and after their medical examination, the police arrested the accused party. He submits that after considering the evidence and witnesses the learned Magistrate held the accused party guilty of having made offence punishable under Section 323, 506 and 34 IPC vide judgment dated 10.12.2015 and while passing the order of sentence dated 11.12.2015 learned Magistrate granted probation to accused Ramesh and Charan Singh, however accused Chandan Singh -respondent No.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/-. He contends that appeal being preferred by Chandan Singh, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment dated 30.11.2017 proceeded to uphold the conviction but modified the order of sentence by reducing it to 3 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-. He submits that there was no ground made out for such a reduction in sentence and considering the fact that the accused had attacked the complainant party in police lockup would show that they had no respect for law and on this core the respondent No.2 do not deserve any concession. He submits that such reduction of sentence by learned Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted in accordance with law in reducing the sentence, taking into consideration the age of respondent No.2 and also the nature of offence. He submits that there is no merit in the petition and as such the same may be dismissed.

7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and considering the record it is not disputed that the quarrel took place between the parties in the police lockup where they had inflicted injuries on each other, instant FIR was registered at the behest of the petitioner while FIR No. 1 dated 01.01.2013 was registered against the the petitioner and other persons at the behest of the complainant Charan Singh. The learned Magistrate while passing the judgment dated 10.12.2015 held the accused Ramesh, Charan Singh, Chandan Singh liable for having committed offences punishable under Section 323, 506, and section 34 IPC and while passing the order of sentence dated 11.12.2015 accused Ramesh and Charan Singh were given concession of probation while respondent No.2 Chandan was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appeal was preferred by respondent No.2 whereby learned Additional District & Sessions Judge although dismissed the appeal but as far as the conviction part was concerned, sentence was reduced from one