Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2002 Date of Decision: 15.3.2010 Nirmal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by Nirmal Singh, who was named as accused in case FIR No. 9 dated 13.2.1997 registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar, under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC. The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, vide impugned judgment dated 17.11.2000, held the petitioner guilty for an offence under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC. By another order of even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 323 IPC. He was further sentenced under Sections 324 and 326 IPC to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2002 2 payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month, on both the counts. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the judgment rendered by the trial Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 16.8.2001, had acquitted the petitioner for an offence under Section 326 IPC, however, upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence awarded to him, by the trial Court, for an offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The lower Appellate Court, after taking into consideration the young age of petitioner as 20 years, had released him on probation for a period of two years. It was further ordered that the fine paid be treated as a cost of litigation. The petitioner, still feeling aggrieved against the order of probation, has filed the present revision petition. In the present case, the petitioner had caused injuries to PW.2 Jasprit Singh. The testimony of PW.2 Jasprit Singh was corroborated by PW.3 Sukhprit Singh, his brother and PW.5 Kirpal Singh. PW.2 Jasprit Singh had suffered the following injuries. “1. Incised wound 1¼” x ½” bone deep on the back and lateral side of left little finger. Underlying bone was cut. Fresh bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 2. Superficial linear incised wound on palmer surface middle base of left hand. 3. Complaint of pain back of both legs”. A perusal of injury No.1 reveals that there was a bone cut of Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2002 3 the left little finger. PW.4 Dr. Ashok Raswant, Radiologist, had found a fracture of the middle phalanx of the left little finger. The State, on the other hand, has opted not to file any appeal against the acquittal of petitioner for an offence under Section 326 IPC. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance on the testimony of PW.2 Jasprit Singh, injured, PW. Sukhprit Singh and PW.5 Kirpal Singh. I have perused the statements of witnesses and the documents brought on record. No ground is made out to differ with the findings recorded by both the Courts below. There is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 15, 2010 “DK”