Crl. Revision No.1442 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1442 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.09.2011 Harbans Singh & another ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab. **** Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral) Custody certificates of the petitioners filed in court, are taken on record. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Trial court dated 23.09.2010 and that of the Appellate Court dated 20.05.2011 whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 325/34 IPC and RI for 6 months under Section 323/34 IPC and the appeal filed against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed. The petitioners were accused of having caused injuries to the complainant and FIR bearing No.124 dated 15.05.2004 under Sections 323, 325 & 34 IPC was registered against them at Police Station Malerkotla. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 11.05.2004 at about 7.30 am when the petitioners were working in their fields and a fight erupted between them and the complainant. In this process, they pelted stones at each other. Harbans Singh – petitioner No.1 Crl. Revision No.1442 of 2011 (O&M) -2- came to the fields of Nachattar Singh and caught hold him from the hair by his hand while his son Parmail Singh – petitioner No.2 beat him up with an axe. Upon investigation, the petitioners complicity in the commission of offence was established and the challan was submitted appropriately. They were charged for the commission of offence under Section 323, 325 & 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the instant petition that has been filed against the abovesaid conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed only on the quantum of sentence. He has stated that the petitioners have already undergone 3½ months of the total substantive sentence of one year and he has further contented that the petitioners are first offenders and prays for benefit of probation. The prayer has been opposed by the learned State counsel, who has contented that the conviction and sentence awarded by both the courts below are correct and do not warrant any interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration of the matter, I find that the prayer of the petitioners regarding their release on probation merits acceptance. The petitioners are agriculturists by profession and there is no material on record to suggest that they are involved in any other criminal activity. The fight is said to have taken place on the spur of the moment without their being any prior intent. Apart from this, the petitioners have faced the prosecution since 2004 and have also suffered imprisonment of more than 3 months. Having regard to the aforesaid, when there is no material to Crl. Revision No.1442 of 2011 (O&M) -3- suggest that the petitioners are involved in the commission of any other offence and noticing the circumstances which have been detailed above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners deserve the concession of probation. Consequently they are directed to be released on probation in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur with an undertaking that they will not involve themselves in any criminal activity during the period of one year and shall maintain peace and harmony in the society. The present revision petition stands disposed of. September 02, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) sonia Judge