IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 729 of 2002 Date of Decision : February 24, 2010 Sewa Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate. Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioners were tried for offences under Sections 325/324/323/34 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 14/15.7.1999, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal convicted them for the aforementioned offences. Amrit Lal and Subhash Chand petitioners were released on probation of good conduct and behaviour for a period of two years on their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one surety in the like amount. They were also burdened with Rs.500/- each as costs of proceedings. However, Sewa Singh and Sube Singh petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each under Sections 325/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each under Sections 324/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each under Sections 323/34 IPC. Their sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners filed an appeal. Vide judgment dated 23.10.2001, Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissed the appeal of Amrit Lal and Criminal Revision No. 729 of 2002 -2- Subhash Chand. Even the appeal filed by Sewa Singh and Sube Singh was dismissed, except for modification on the point of sentence by directing their release on probation also on their entering into bonds for a sum of Rs.2,000/- each for one year with one surety of the like amount, and to keep peace and be of good behaviour. These two petitioners were further directed to pay Rs.2,500/- each as costs of the proceedings. The amount of fine of Rs.800/- which had already been paid by each of the said two petitioners was adjusted towards costs of proceedings. The petitioners are now before this Court by way of the present revision wherein they have challenged their conviction for the offences under Sections 325/324/323/34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioners had given beatings to Desh Bandhu and Ram Pal on 16.3.1993 at about 8.15 P.M. near the well in front of nohra of Fateh Singh situated in village Kaul. The FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by injured Ram Pal wherein he stated that the cause of the occurrence was petty quarrel which occurred between the children of the parties on the day of Holi festival. The prosecution had examined both the injured, namely, complainant Ram Pal as PW1 and Desh Bandhu as PW2 in support of the ocular account. After perusing their testimonies, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that they were truthful witnesses. The contradictions in their statements as pointed out by the defence were termed as minor. The injures found on their persons were proved by PW1 Dr. B.D. Kakkar, according to whom, he medico legally examined Ram Pal on 17.3.1993 and found two injuries on his person, one was a lacerated wound on the left parietal region and the other a linear abrasion on the right leg. Similarly, he also medico legally examined Desh Bandhu on the same day and found two injuries on his person. First injury was an incised wound on the occipital region while the second a diffused swelling and tenderness on the left hand thumb. The second injury found on the person of Desh Bandhu when x-rayed by Dr. S.K. Singal, who appeared Criminal Revision No. 729 of 2002 -3- as PW4, was found to have resulted in a fracture of proximal phalynx of the thumb. Both the parties belonged to the same Mohalla in the village. Therefore, there could not be any case of mistaken identity. Sewa Singh petitioner had taken the plea that the prosecution was suppressing the genesis of the occurrence and, in fact, both the injured had come to his house and tried to commit theft of the buffalos and when he caught them red handed, they opened an attack but in order to defend himself he pushed Desh Bandhu in front of Ram Pal which resulted in Desh Bandhu receiving an injury. The defence plea is highly improbable. No injury had been received by Sewa Singh-petitioner. Moreover, he could not explain the remaining three injuries found on the two injured witnesses. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the petitioners for the various offences as recorded by the learned Courts below. All the petitioners now stand released on probation. It may not be out of place to mention here that in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, none of the petitioners shall incur any disqualification on account of their present conviction. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed, but with the observation that none of the petitioners shall incur any disqualification on account of their conviction as they already stand released on probation. ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 24, 2010 JUDGE satish