Crl. Revision No. 1425 of 2005 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1425 of 2005 Date of Decision: February 09, 2011 Ram Chander ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Shekhar Mudgal, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana *** GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner-accused, Ram Chander, was convicted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, vide judgment dated 18.11.2003 and was sentenced as under:- Sr. No. Under Section Sentence imposed Fine 1 323 IPC To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months - 2 325 IPC To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ years ` 500/- In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months He preferred appeal against that conviction and sentence. His conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 16.7.2005, but the sentence imposed upon him under Section 325 IPC was reduced from 1½ Crl. Revision No. 1425 of 2005 -2- years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. The present revision petition has been preferred by him against that conviction and sentence. However, at the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer, made in the revision petition, only against the sentence so imposed upon him. He has submitted that the petitioner, at the time of his conviction, was 56 years old and now he has attained the age of 67 years and he is having the liability of maintaining his children. He prayed that he be released on probation as no previous conviction was proved against him and no special reasons were recorded by the trial court for disallowing him the benefit of probation though he was entitled to that benefit. As per the prosecution version, he along with co-accused, Sube, Vijay and Ram Niwas attacked Amrit Singh, complainant/injured with the help of lathis and voluntarily caused hurt to him. When that Amrit Singh was medically examined by Dr. Randeep Singh Punia, PW-5, the following injuries were found on his person:- 1. Lacerated wound 7 x ½ cm. X Bone deep on right side of skull about 1½ c.m. lateral view, midline and placed antero- posteriorily, fresh, bleeding was present. Advised X-ray and surgeon's opinion at G.H.Bhiwani. 2. Contusion 30 x 3 cm on back of thorax, horizontally placed, reddish in colour. It is situated on both sides of spine and spine itself, continuously. Advised X-ray and surgeon's opinion. 3. Contusion 16 X 6 cm. On left side of back of thorax, about 2 cm above the injury No. 2, horizontally placed. Reddish in colour. Advised X-ray and surgeon's opinion. Crl. Revision No. 1425 of 2005 -3- 4. Complaint of pain at proximal interphalangel joint region of left index finger of hand, associated with tenderness and swelling. Advised X-ray and orthopedics opinion. 5. Patient complaint of dimness of vision in right eye, redness of right eye present. Advised eye surgeon's opinion.” Thus, grievous injury was not found on any vital part of the injured. No previous conviction was either alleged or proved against the petitioner by the prosecution. The offence under Section 325 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years and as such, the petitioner could have been released on probation under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). For not allowing that benefit to him, the trial court, as per the provisions of Section 361 of the Code, was required to record the special reasons. No such special reasons were recorded. The petitioner has stood protracted trial for a period of more than 10 years. At present he is a man of advance age having a family to support. Keeping in view these mitigating circumstances, I think it proper and expedient to release him on probation in stead of sentencing him to any punishment. Accordingly, the sentence so imposed upon him is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation on his executing personal bonds in the sum of ` 5000/- with a surety in the like amount for a period of three years to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during that period and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meanwhile. For the injuries caused to the complainant, the petitioner is liable to compensate him suitably. He is directed to pay compensation of `` 15,000/- to Amrit Singh, complainant, under Section 357 of the Code. The bonds, to be furnished, and the compensation to be deposited before the trial Crl. Revision No. 1425 of 2005 -4- court within one month from the date of this order. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Records of the trial court be returned forthwith. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE February 09, 2011 PARAMJIT