JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and examined and impugned judgments as well as record of both the Courts below.
(2.) BEFORE arguing the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he does not want to press this revision petition on merits and his prayer is only to reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below to a period already undergone by the accused petitioner. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bharatpur under Section 377 IPC to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 6,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. It was also ordered that out of Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- will be paid to the father of injured Roop Singh towards compensation. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed an appeal which was partly allowed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 judgment dated 25. 06. 2004. The Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner but reduced the sentence from five years to two years rigorous imprisonment. The amount of fine was also reduced from Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. As stated above, the petitioner has not challenged the conviction and his limited prayer is only to reduce the sentence. The counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a matter relating to the year 1994 and he has already suffered a mental agony for last eleven years. He further contended that after dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Bharatpur vide judgment dated 25th June 2004, he preferred this revision petition alongwith application for suspension of sentence but this Court dismissed the application for suspension of sentence twice. Therefore, since the date of judgment of the first appellate Court i. e. 25th June 2004, the petitioner is in Jail for last about 15 months. He further submitted that the remained in custody for some months during investigation/trial of the case till he was enlarged on bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in case sentence of imprisonment is reduced then at least amount of fine may be enhanced and victim may be compensated.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned judgments as well as record of the Trial Court. There is no dispute that petitioner is facing trial since last 11 years and he is in continuous custody since 25th June 2004. Therefore, he has already undergone for a period of one year and three months. He also remained for some time in custody during investigation/trial of the case. After considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet, in case the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period already undergone by the petitioner and amount of fine is increased from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 6,000/ -. ;