CRR No.1635 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1635 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.01.2011 Ranjit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioners/accused have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 23.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Sirsa, thereby upholding order passed by the learned Trial Court acquitting the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 365/506 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting them under Sections 148/323/324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and releasing them on probation for a period of one year subject to their furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount, in case FIR No.118 dated 8.6.2001 under Sections 148/149/324/365/506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Sirsa. Aggrieved from the order of the Trial Court vide judgment dated 31.1.2007, appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while affirming the CRR No.1635 of 2010 (O&M) -2- order passed by the learned Trial Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the accused/petitioners. Brief facts of the present case are that on 8.6.2001 Ranbir Singh ASI along with other police officials was returning to polce station in a Government vehicle and when he reached near Balmiki Chowk, then a ruqa was received regarding the admission of injured Jaspal son of Sukhdayal and he reached at General Hospital, Sirsa and sought the opinion of the doctor, who declared him fit to make statement and the statement of the injured Jaspal son of Sukhdayal was recorded, who inter alia stated therein that he has passed 10+1 class and comes for training from village Begu daily at about 10.00 a.m. and on that day when he was waiting for a vehicle near the Masala factory in the area of village Begu, a three-wheeler came there driven by Anand Parkash son of Guradaitta, r/o Jagdambey colony, Sirsa and he got into the said three-wheeler for travelling and one Sukhdayal son of Karam Chand also sat in the said three-wheeler for going to Sirsa. Suddenly, five boys namely Jasmer, Satpal, Ranjit, Surender, Hardeep and Gopi, driver of the gypsy arrived there riding in an open jeep (gypsy). They dragged the complainant out of the said three-wheeler and put him into their jeep stating that the complainant would be taught a lesson for quarreling with them in a cricket match some days back. He was blind folded by the said persons and was subsequently taken to a place near village Bhamboor and was thoroughly beaten by them through lathis. Ranjit pulled the ear ring worn by the complainant in his right ear and blood started from his ear. The complainant was saved from said persons by Atma Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and Sukhchain Lal son of Amolak Chand. CRR No.1635 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Thereafter, all the said persons ran away towards village Bhamboor. In the opinion of this Court, first appellate court was well within its jurisdiction in upholding the order passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the accused/petitioners under Sections 148/323/324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and releasing the accused on probation on executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount each. Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when a good piece of evidence is escaped from the notice of the Court proving the guilt or Court below has committed manifest error of law or jurisdictional error. This is a case where trial court has rightly exercised jurisdiction/discretion in releasing the accused on probation. Moreover, accused seems to be first time offenders. Instead to sending them to jail in the company of hard care criminals, release on probation seems to be best option to accord an opportunity to reform. No interference is called for. Revision is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge January 19, 2011 R.S.