Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1999 Date of Decision: 5.3.2009 Rohtash …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2000 Sohan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: None for the petitioners. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. None for respondents No.2 to 11 (In Criminal Revision No. 486 of 1999) Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, two revision petitions i.e. Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1999 titled as “ Rohtash v. State of Haryana” and Criminal Revision No. 486 of 1999 titled as “Sohan Lal v. State of Haryana and Another” will be decided together. Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1999 2 Sohan Lal resident of village Mithi, in his statement to the police stated that they are six brothers. Mai Lal and Ram Singh, his brothers were residing with him. The other brothers resided outside the village in their respective houses. He had a dispute with Partap Singh, Rohtash, Rattan Chand, Ram Kumar and Duli Chand. The matter was compromised. However, on 2.2.1992, when at about 7/8.00 P.M. he was having his meals in his house, he heard some noise in front of the house of his brother. He saw 11 accused armed with lathies and jaillies. They were knocking at the door of his brother's house and were giving threats to him to come out of his house. Rohtash was armed with lathi. He caused injury on the right eye of the complainant. Jagbir and Balbir reached at the spot. The other accused decamped from the spot. Sohan Lal appeared as PW.1 and reiterated what was stated in the FIR. Balbir Singh appeared as PW.4. Dr. V.B.Dixit and Dr. Ram Chander were examined as PW.3 and PW.4, respectively, to prove medical evidence. The prosecution case was based upon the testimony of PW.1 Sohan Lal, PW.2 Ram Singh and PW.4 Balbir Singh. All the 11 accused namely, Partap Singh, Rohtash, Ram Kumar, Duli Chand, Mahinder, Jaibir, Amit Lal, Rajal, Daya Singh, Vinod and Ram Chander were tried by the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwani. The trial Court convicted and sentenced them under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused were further convicted and sentenced under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC to undergo Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1999 3 rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Accused were also convicted and sentenced under Section 149 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentenced were ordered to run concurrent. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwani, accused filed an appeal. The same was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The Appellate Court granted benefit of doubt to all the accused except Rohtash. It was held that except accused Rohtash nobody had caused injuries. As per testimony of PW.6 Dr. V.S. Pahwa, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani, Sohan Lal had suffered a fracture of nasal bone and fractures of maxillary bone of right orbit with haziness of right maxillary. Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2000 has been filed by Sohan Lal complainant against the acquittal of ten accused whereas Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1999 has been preferred by Rohtash against his conviction and sentence. The Appellate Court had rightly acquitted all other accused except Rohtash as they had caused no injury in the occurrence. In the present case occurrence had taken place on 2.2.1992. More than 17 years are going to elapse. It will be highly unjust to send Rohtash behind the bars after a period of 17 years. Therefore, Rohtash is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year in order to maintain good behaviour and peace. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, shall call upon Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1999 4 accused/petitioner Rohtash to furnish necessary bonds and thereafter petitioner Rohtash will be released on probation for a period of one year. However, in case of any breach of the terms & conditions of the bonds, accused/petitioner Rohtash can be called upon to serve the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Cost of litigation is assessed as Rs.25,000/- and the same shall be paid to the complainant Sohan Lal. With the observations made above, Criminal Revision No. 1386 of 1999 is disposed off. However, no interference is called for in Criminal Revision No. 486 of 2000, and hence, the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 5, 2009 “DK”