IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1723 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 21, 2011 Rajbir …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. Complainant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court / Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dated 08.09.2009 maintaining the conviction passed by learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.04.2008 and directing to release the accused on CRR No. 1723 of 2010 probation for the period of two years subject to furnishing of probation bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety to like amount by each accused with the condition, during the period of subsistence of probation, accused shall maintain good behaviour, tranquility and will not commit any such offence, against the person and property of the complainant party. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner – complainant, on 30.04.2004 at 2.15 p.m. being admitted in hospital, made statement before the police, stating therein that on 29.04.2004, he and his younger brother Balraj, were irrigating their fields. At about 12.30 p.m. accused, who were boarding on tractor, trade mark `Massey’, to which, trolley was also attached, entered in the land of the complainant party. All the accused were armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of their common intention, proclaimed to teach a lesson to the enemies i.e. complainant and his brother and started beating them. Accused Richhpal gave blow with Barchhi (spear) to the complainant, which landed on his right knee. He fell on the ground and then accused Kalu Ram and Ved Prakash gave lathi blow to him. Kalu Ram, gave lathi blow on his right foot. Ved Prakash gave lathi on his left foot and they repeated the blows. Again Richhpal gave blow on left side of 2 CRR No. 1723 of 2010 his mouth from the tail and point of spear (in local dialect termed godh). Accused Lada and Baldev gave beating to complainant’s brother Balraj with lathi. When complainant and his brother Balraj raised noise, then, on hearing their noise, their father Om Parkash and one Rakesh son of Hari Singh, appeared at the site. They witnessed the occurrence and rescued the complainant and his brother from the clutches of the accused. Few more persons also appeared at the site. Then, accused boarding on their tractor-trolley, along with their weapons, went away from the site of occurrence. The tractor was driven by accused Kalu Ram. Private vehicle was arranged and then complainant and his brother were taken to Govt. Hospital at Hisar for treatment wherein Medical Officer, provided first aid to them and for better treatment, complainant and his brother Balraj were taken to Arora Hospital, at Hisar. On 29.04.2004, due to suffering of injuries, complainant was not conscious and was not fit to make statement before the police and on gaining consciousness on 30.4.2004, he made statement before the police. On the basis of statement Ex.P1, made by the complainant before the police, present FIR was registered against the accused. After registration of the case, police swung into investigation. During the course of investigation, accused were arrested. On completion of 3 CRR No. 1723 of 2010 investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against them and they were charged on account of commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, vide order dated 1.7.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution witnesses were ordered to be summoned. In order to prove the charge, prosecution examined total six witnesses in this case. Learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2008 found the accused private respondents guilty and have sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of six months under Section 148 IPC, also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 IPC and accused were also sentenced to undergo SI for a period of two years under Section 325 IPC. The Appellate Court has confirmed the conviction order passed by the learned Trial Court, however, has released the accused on probation while observing that there was a dispute about the property and their land are almost adjoining to each other and to avoid situation to become more aggressive to take revenge, release on probation is the best course. Learned Appellate 4 CRR No. 1723 of 2010 Court has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the matter of Ram Lal alias Ramu vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2003(2) Criminal Court Judgments, 431 (P&H), Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2005(2) Criminal Court Judgments 587 (P&H), State of Punjab Vs. Kuldip Singh and others, reported in 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports (P&H) 670 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Hansa Vs. State of Punjab reported in Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 550. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court was not justified in releasing the private respondents-accused on probation while confirming the conviction order passed by the learned Trial Court. In the opinion of this Court, sending the first time offender to jail in the company of hardcore criminals would not be justified from every angle and an opportunity should be granted to every first time offender to reform while releasing him on probation. In the opinion of this Court, judicial discretion exercised by the Appellate Court while releasing the accused on probation should not ordinarily be disturbed by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. 5 CRR No. 1723 of 2010 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to invoke the revisional jurisdiction to disturb the order passed by the learned Appellate Court releasing the accused-private respondents on probation. Dismissed. January 21, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 6