Crl.Rev.No.2193 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.2193 of 2003 Date of Decision: 21 - 5 - 2009 Hans Raj @ Kakku .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner Hans Raj @ Kakku son of Charan Dass has been tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in case FIR No.145 dated 4.7.1995 registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar under Sections 323, 324, 325 IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.50/- for offence under Section 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.100/- for offence under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.250/- for offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and in default of payment of fine, petitioner was to undergo further rigorous Crl.Rev.No.2193 of 2003 [2] imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed an appeal. The appeal was heard and decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The Appellate Court had set aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section 323 IPC. However, dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction under Sections 324 and 325 IPC. The petitioner was taken into custody on 10.10.2003 and was ordered to be released on bail on 3.11.2003. According to counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has undergone one month and 7 days of his actual sentence. Prayer made in the present petition is that conviction and sentence maintained by two Courts below be set aside. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 3.7.1995 at 4.00 P.M., petitioner was armed with a Datar. He arrived at the plot of the complainant where the complainant had stored the wooden battens for construction of roof of his house. It is stated that at that time, a dispute arose regarding placement of wooden battens. Petitioner then caused a datar blow from its sharp side on the head of the complainant. He gave another datar blow from reverse side which hit complainant Tarsem Singh on his left arm. Third injury was caused by the petitioner on left leg of the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a grievous injury to Shiv Lal and fled away from the spot. Occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by Shiv Lal and Ram Raj. Complainant Tarsem Singh and Shiv Lal were examined at Civil Hospital. Tarsem Singh suffered two incised wounds and one contusion. Injury No.2 on the person of complainant Tarsem Singh on left arm was declared as grievous. Shiv Lal suffered one injury i.e. contusion. This injury was suffered by him on his right forearm and was Crl.Rev.No.2193 of 2003 [3] declared grievous. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that since both the witnesses have deposed against the petitioner, he will not be able to dislodge their testimony. Counsel further submit that he will not assail the conviction awarded upon the petitioner but pray to this Court that taking into consideration the fact that occurrence had taken place in 1995 and petitioner had suffered a protracted trial of 14 years, sentence awarded upon the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner had not committed any offence before registration of the present FIR and thereafter. It is stated that after suspension of sentence, petitioner is leading a life of peaceful and honest citizen. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, counsel for the State has submitted that if benefit of mitigating circumstances i.e. protracted trial, antecedents and conduct of the accused is to be granted, the petitioner ought to be released on probation. I find merit in this submission of counsel for the State. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year under the Probation of Offenders Act. Petitioner was aged 40 years when the occurrence took place. He is ordered to be released on probation subject to his furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. Costs of litigation is assessed at Rs.1,000/-. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, to be paid as compensation to two injured i.e. Tarsem Singh and Shiv Lal. The amount of costs and fine be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. On deposit of Crl.Rev.No.2193 of 2003 [4] the aforesaid amount, petitioner shall be permitted to furnish bond for probation. In case the amount of costs and compensation is not deposited, no benefit shall accrue to the petitioner and he shall undergo the entire sentence awarded by the Appellate Court. Revision petition is disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 21, 2009. JUDGE RC