IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1158 of 2005 Date of decision: October 15, 2010 Kulwinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 3.6.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-appellant Kulwinder Singh (herein referred as, 'the accused') against the judgment dated 27.1.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Hoshiarpur, convicting and sentencing him as under :- U/s 323 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. U/s 324 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-. U/s 452 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.400/-. The allegations in brief are that the complainant Gurnath Singh (herein referred as, 'the complainant') along with his wife Tarsem Kaur was present in front of his house. In the meantime, the accused came and after giving abuses to the complainant party started pelting stones. One stone hit the right leg of Tarsem Kaur. The complainant and his wife Tarsem Kaur took shelter in their house. After about 10 minutes the complainant went to the house of Kehar Singh but the accused followed him. When the complainant was present in the varandah of the house of Kehar Singh, the accused trespassed into the house of Kehar Singh and inflicted poker (sua) blow which hit towards the left side of the head of the complainant. Criminal Revision No. 1158 of 2005 -2- Thereafter the accused slipped away from the spot. The complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Mahilpur for medical treatment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was registered and investigated. On completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court. The accused was charged under Sections 323/324/452 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Gurnath Singh complainant (PW1), Kehar Singh (PW2), Krishna Sharma (PW3), Tarsem Kaur (PW4), Dr. Daljinder Singh Medical Officer (PW5), Charan Singh (PW6), Dr. Surinder Gagar Radiologist (PW7) and SI/SHO Tej Pal (PW8). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. The trial ended in conviction. His appeal also failed. Record perused. Heard. There are two injured namely Gurnath Singh and Tarsem Kaur. Both have supported the prosecution case. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. As such, no exception to the judgment of conviction could be made at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the injuries on the person of Gurnath Singh were declared as simple in nature. The sole grievous injury on the person of Tarsem Kaur was on the non vital part of her body. The occurrence took place way back in the year 1999 and the accused has already suffered a lot due to the protracted proceedings pending against him since then. He has already undergone about one month and ten days of the substantive sentence. He is the sole bread winner of the family. No bad antecedents have come on record in order to dub him as habitual offender. As such, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if some leniency is extended to him. Criminal Revision No. 1158 of 2005 -3- Resultantly, while dismissing the petition, sentence passed against the petitioner is modified to the extent that he be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for a period of one year within which period he shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, he will be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. However, the fine is converted into costs of litigation and he is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- more towards costs of litigation which would be paid within three months from today failing which he would serve the sentence as awarded by the trial court. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur for compliance. October 15, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge